Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Council House Sales

Mr. Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the exclusion of council houses of unique historical and architectural interest and importance from the sale of council house provisions of the Housing Act 1980.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): As the hon. Member knows, the Department has received a number of representations about the railway village, Swindon. The Department has also received one general representation on this topic and specific representations from the hon. Member and local authority concerned in two other cases: some cottages in Bedfordshire and some listed buildings in Bath.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am pleased that he is to come to Swindon to see the railway village built by Brunel and to hear local opinions on why it should not go out of local authority control? Is he also aware that I would prefer him not to come to Swindon naked—I am sure that he looks nice naked, but I hope that he will not come naked of ideas—and that I hope that he will be able to persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends to amend the Act so that the railway village can remain in local authority ownership?

Mr. Finsberg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first remarks. I can only assure him that, unlike some members of the Labour Party, I do not propose to be sent to the conference chamber naked.

Mr. Latham: Whatever the merits of particular exclusions, does my hon. Friend accept that all Conservative Members want to see as many council houses as possible included and sold, particularly where local authorities are refusing to do so?

Mr. Finsberg: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Proctor: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), what reassurance can my hon. Friend give to the House that some council houses will not become of unique historical and architectural interest before some Labour authorities sell to tenants, including the London borough of Waltham Forest?

Mr. Finsberg: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the determination with which my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction is proceeding will give that guarantee to tenants.

House Building (Public Sector)

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of public sector house building starts for the first four months of 1981.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): On a seasonally adjusted basis, 8,800 in England.

Mr. Cryer: Is that not a miserable figure compared with over 100,000 houses built in Great Britain in the last full year of the Labour Government? Does not that spell misery for hundreds of thousands of people on waiting lists throughout the country and also for the 300,000 building workers who are on the dole and waiting for a job? Why cannot the Tory Government abandon their vicious, repressive polices and set the building workers to work to build the houses for which people are anxiously waiting?

Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the presentation of the housing programme in terms of starts is highly misleading because for at least four years there has been a significant switch from new build to improvement, which took place under the previous Government as well as under this Government. The hon. Member should be aware that 77,000 local authority dwellings were improved last year, which was the highest number of local authority dwellings to be improved since 1973.

Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that in some areas, generally Labour-controlled, there was massive building of council houses and restriction on the lease of land for private houses, resulting in more than 50 per cent. of the housing stock being council houses? Does he not agree that, in such circumstances, that percentage is adequate?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is entirely right. One of the major under-used assets in housing is vacant land which is in local authority ownership. My right hon. Friends are doing valuable work through the land registration exercise, which already shows that there are hundreds of acres up and down the country which could be made available if local authorities were willing to sell them.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does not the Minister regret the fact that housing starts in the public sector are so low? Is it not an appalling state of affairs that housing starts last year were the worst since 1925 and, judging by the figures this year, will be only half of last year's figures? What does the Minister intend to do to give some hope to the thousands of people on council waiting lists? Has he abdicated all responsibility for public sector housing?

Mr. Stanley: I do not regret responding to the local authority associations, which were unanimous in wishing local authorities to have total discretion in how they used their housing allocations. The discretion has been greatly welcomed by local authorities. As I said to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), over the past four years there has been a gradual switch from new building to improvement. For example, in 1977–78, the proportion of


local authority expenditure going to improvement was 17 per cent., in 1978–79 it was 22 per cent., in 1979–80, 29 per cent. and in 1980–81, 31 per cent. It has gone up in four successive years.

Merseyside Urban Development Corporation

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will make his final appointments to the Merseyside urban development corporation; and if he will ensure that somebody representative of the Labour movement is included.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I informed the House of my initial appointments on 13 May, and I hope to be able to announce a further appointment in the near future.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the initial welcome of the Labour movement on Merseyside for the establishment of the urban development corporation is being dissipated by the appointments made, primarily of Tory councillors, business men and academics, with no one representing the Labour movement, in an area that returns Labour councillors and Members of Parliament?

Mr. Heseltine: The people in the area will judge the UDC by its results. The hon. Gentleman will note from my reply that I have not completed the appointments.

Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. Friend accept our sympathy over the problem of deciding whether representatives of the Labour movement should come from the trade union movement, the NEC or, on occasions, Opposition Members?

Mr. Heseltine: The difficulty is that the number of appointments to the Merseyside UDC is limited, so it is difficult to include representatives of all the competing factions within the Labour Party.

Mr. Graham: Does the Minister recall that the Opposition strongly condemned the autocratic power that he took for himself to draw up the membership of UDCs? Does the outcome not completely justify our charge that the Government hold democracy, consultation and community involvement in complete contempt?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman could not have heard my answer. I am considering an additional appointment to the Merseyside UDC. The area has a long history of dereliction. The people on Merseyside want an agency with the resources and ability to improve that track record, which is what they are getting.

Mr. Parry: I fully support the statements of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). The Labour movement on Merseyside will totally reject the unrepresentative set-up of the UDC, which comprises Tory and Liberal politicians and big business men.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will all assume that the hon. Gentleman prefaced his words by "Is the Minister aware" which makes a statement into a question.

Mr. Heseltine: The answer is no different on the third time of asking than it was on the first. I repeat that I am in the process of making an additional appointment to the board.

Housing (Metropolitan Districts)

Mr. Joseph Dean: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a study of the housing needs of the six largest metropolitan districts outside London.

Mr. Stanley: I do not consider that further study is required, as the local authorities concerned provide the Department with considerable information in their HIP returns and strategy statements each year.

Mr. Dean: Does the Minister's reply not show that over the past two years there has been a substantial increase in the waiting lists of the six authorities? Is he aware that, in the city that I represent, the waiting list has increased by over 2,000, or 10 per cent.? Does not the Government's policy cause despair for those waiting to be housed, and when will the Minister alter the policy to give them hope?

Mr. Stanley: This is the first financial year in which local authorities have been able to increase their allocations by using capital receipts. [Interruption.] That may be amusing to hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, but for a local authority such as Leeds, which has about 3,000 local authority tenants wishing to buy their houses, it represents a substantial ability to increase its capital allocation.

Mr. Greville Janner: In metropolitan districts, such as Leicester, where the waiting list for council houses exceeds 10 per cent. of the entire population, do not the reductions in the moneys made available by the Government mean that resources are shrinking as needs are growing, so that those who most need help are becoming less and less able to get it?

Mr. Stanley: Leicester, too, has substantial ability to add to its capital allocation through capital receipts, and many thousands of its local authority tenants wish to buy their houses, although the city council is making only slow progress in that direction.

Rating Review

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when the review of the domestic rating system will be completed.

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in considering methods of reforming the rating system in England; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in considering the financial implications of substituting the domestic rating system with a local income tax.

Mr. Heseltine: I intend to issue a consultation document on the alternatives to domestic rates in the autumn.

Mr. Knox: How long will my right hon. Friend allow for consultation, and when will he introduce legislation to reform or abolish the rating system? Does he realise that the matter is most urgent?

Mr. Heseltine: I take my hon. Friend's point. The matter is becoming increasingly more urgent as rates become higher than can be justified. It would be wrong for


me to set a limit on the time for consultation before publishing the consultation document. We wish to ensure that the time is adequate for such an important proposal, so the timing of the legislation will be decided in the light of the consultation process.

Mr. van Straubenzee: My right hon. Friend may fully understand the feelings in the country about the rating system, but will he, nevertheless, be watchful before abolishing a system in which rates are cheap to collect? Will he be careful before moving to another system, as almost all studies show that the cost of collection by alternative methods may be tremendous?

Mr. Heseltine: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's remark. It is popular to advocate change but not always to announce its consequences. We shall consider the point that he makes.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Has the Secretary of State considered the recent replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about the consequences of the rating system, which he has related to the arguments that he has presented to the House on many occasions that high rate demands affect employment? Has he noted that there is no positive correlation between high rate increases and jobs, but, on the contrary, there seems to be a negative correlation, and that where local public expenditure is high the number of jobs does not decrease but continues to increase?

Mr. Heseltine: The House will want to weigh the research of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) against the virtually unanimous advice of industry.

Mr. Bowden: Is my right hon. Friend really aware of the growing anger at the unfair domestic rating system? Is he aware that the country is sick and tired of hearing about consultative documents and consultations, and that his office must be stacked with recommendations, consultation papers and goodness knows what else? Will he, without fail, take action next year?

Mr. Heseltine: I can help my hon. Friend. Few people understand better than I the fury provoked by the domestic rating system. My office is stacked with documents dealing with alternative means to finance local government. The difficulty is choosing the right solution.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that, irrespective of the levels of expenditure, the distortions of the rating system are reduced when the proportion of local authorities' expenditure borne by the Consolidated Fund and other forms of taxation is increased? Why does he seek to decrease the amount of such funding when to increase it would reduce the distortions of which his hon. Friend complains?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman's point is probably technically accurate, but that must be weighed against the argument that those who are elected should be elected against a background in which the electors know something of the costs of the services for which they are voting. The more that central Government takes over responsibility for funding local government, the harder it is to justify the view that local government is autonomous.

Sir David Price: Following my right hon. Friend's last reply, does he accept the key recommendation of the Layfield report that whoever is responsible for spending money should also be responsible for raising it, so that the

amount of expenditure is subject to democratic control? Will he base his discussion document on that vital recommendation?

Mr. Heseltine: I assure my hon. Friend that the thinking behind that statement must be reflected in the consultative document. There are many ways of dealing with the solutions required, but we shall certainly wish that issue to be thoroughly ventilated in the consultative process.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some information about the draft circular on rate support grant that he is sending out? First, has he now abandoned the disgraceful paragraph under which he would send in auditors to check the inflation assumptions of local authorities—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I honestly believe that the right hon. Gentleman is asking a question that is not related to this one.

Mr. Kaufman: First, Mr. Speaker, it relates to domestic rating. Secondly, it relates to reform of the rating system.

Mr. Speaker: "Review" is the key word here. The subject is the review of the domestic rating system.

Mr. Kaufman: I am asking the Minister to assure us, Mr. Speaker, that in his review of the rating system he will abandon the proposals in the draft circular about which there is such widespread concern. Will the Minister abandon the proposal to send in auditors to check inflation assumptions? Will he also tell us, in his review of the rating system, by what authority that circular is being sent to local authorities threatening to deny them rate support grant unless they send him a return by 31 July for which he has no parliamentary authority?

Mr. Heseltine: As I understand the question, the right hon. Member wishes to know whether in the time scale of the review of the domestic rating system I shall deal with the points that he has put. He may be well assured that in the time scale of that review all of those points will be fully understood.

Mr. Kaufman: That may be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is not satisfactory to hundreds of local authorities who need a reply to those questions. Instead of being so contemptuous of the House of Commons, as he always is, will the right hon. Gentleman now say whether he is abandoning the paragraph to which I referred and whether the rate support applications already made by local authorities will stand as valid applications?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman, of course, is straying far beyond the question put to me. As my right hon. Friend made clear on the radio at 1 o'clock, the right hon. Gentleman is not only straying but actualy getting the thinking behind our circular quite wrong.

Mr. Kaufman: No, no.

Mr. Heseltine: If the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to go back to local government and check carefully he will find that his suggestions are not justified.

Housing (Public and Private Sectors)

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies are being undertaken by his


Department of the probable demand for housing in the public and private sectors by 1983–84; and with what result.

Mr. Heseltine: The work that has been carried out by the Department for some years on projections of household formation is being continued. I also refer the hon. Member to the Government's views on assessment of need and demand for housing set out in the Government's reply to the first report from the Environment Committee.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does not that reply attempt to conceal the fact that the Government are unwilling to know the facts in case they confuse the Government's prejudices? Is it not also grossly irresponsible and a discourtesy to the House that when a parliamentary Select Committee on which the Government have a minority has unanimously predicted a shortage of nearly half a million homes by the end of this Parliament the Government have neither undertaken any proper studies to assess the accuracy of that prediction nor started to change their policies?

Mr. Heseltine: I know how much the hon. Gentleman believes that forecasting can solve problems. I take the view, however, that the Department's task is to apply its energies as far as possible to opening up housing opportunities. The Government have carried out a more comprehensive review and have introduced more new initiatives to create potential for housing improvement than any Government for a long time. I therefore totally reject the hon. Gentleman's assertions. With regard to the forecasting which concerns him, I remind the hon. Gentleman that even those who carried out the original exercise had doubts about its value.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Secretary of State live in the real world? Is he unaware that the cost of housing is rising all the time and that vast numbers of people can afford neither to purchase nor to rent? What is the Department doing about the study of the increasing costs of homelessness which fall directly upon local authorities and are reacping levels which they cannot meet? Is the Department prepared to help them?

Mr. Heseltine: I am fully aware that this country has for many years experienced totally unacceptable levels of inflation. It is precisely because of those inflationary pressures that housing costs have risen and it is precisely because we are challenging that with our counter-inflationary policies that I believe that we are right to hold back public expenditure.

Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest estimates show that an additional 200,000 single-person dwellings will be needed in London over the next 10 years? Does he agree that that increased demand could be far more easily met if people knew that there was some permanence in the new shorthold concept?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend's question highlights the difficulty that we face. We have introduced new schemes, but the faster we introduce them the more the Labour Party tries to destroy them.

Water Authorities (Charges)

Mr. Peter Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the powers of water authorities, given to them under the Water Act 1973, to bill their customers directly.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): We have no plans to do so.

Mr. Lloyd: As the ostensibly fairer system that is generally introduced with direct billing is simply a flat basic charge plus a rate-related supplement, does my right hon. Friend agree that this could have been introduced far more simply and cheaply if the water authorities had continued to use local councils as their agents rather than set up labour-intensive direct billing departments of their own?

Mr. King: That is certainly a valid comment. The problem is that the departments are now set up. They certainly represent economies for the water authorities, as the system helps their cash flow and results in significant savings. As I said on an earlier occasion, I have some sympathy with the concern about direct billing, but the system is now established.

Mr. Denis Howell: Has the Minister had time to study the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the subject of the Severn-Trent water authority which was referred by the Government? Is he aware that it approves of direct billing but makes substantial criticisms about parts of the administration as well as of the fundamental concept whereby regional water authorities are established and accountable? How will Parliament be consulted on these matters and how does the Minister intend to proceed with the implementation of that report in conjunction with hon. Members?

Mr. King: I am in the process of studying the report. As the right hon. Gentleman fairly says, it is an important report, which hon. Members will want to study carefully. It will be for the House to decide how it wishes further to consider the report. I hope that we shall be able to make our comments on it within a reasonable time. It will then be for the House to consider how it wishes to take it further.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Secretary of State, when reviewing the powers of the water authorities, consider giving back to the Welsh water authority the land under the jurisdiction of the Severn-Trent water authority now in Wales?

Mr. King: We have no present proposals to do so.

Mr. Neale: Will my right hon. Friend nevertheless consider reviewing the methods by which water authorities bill under the existing system to see whether he can curb the enthusiasm of authorities such as the South-West water authority, which has shown its capacity to send out eight demands to one householder, arriving on the same day, in respect of two properties which have no water supply and no drainage? Each envelope bears an explanation, kindly delivered and inserted by the water authority, of why water charges are so high.

Mr. King: I think that a number of us have suffered from the vagaries of the computer and the mechanised system of billing. These are problems that we face. I thought that my hon. Friend was going to raise the problem of the speed with which some authorities have moved in issuing summonses against people who have not paid their bills. I have taken up that matter with water authorities and a number of them are reviewing their procedures.

Mr. Stoddart: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at water charges completely? Will the Government consider water not as a commodity but as a service? Since it is a service, will they ensure that the rate rebate provisions apply to water as well as to general rates?

Mr. King: The hon. Member will know that his Government were frequently pressed to take just such action and steadfastly refused to do so. On balance, we think that their judgment was right.

Mr. John Wells: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the speed with which summonses are being issued. Will he please look urgently at the habit of some water authorities, particularly the Southern water authority, of charging solicitors' fees by way of court costs at apparently £12 a head, whereas if the man who issued the summons was an ordinary chap such as myself and not a solicitor the scale fee would appear to be £4? All the fellow does is sign his name on a piece of paper. This is absurd.

Mr. King: The water authorities have found problems over the treatment of costs, and a number of the costs have fallen on them. That is causing them to consider the position again. The whole matter is now under review.

Housing Waiting Lists

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce new measures to meet the housing needs of the 1·3 million families on local authority housing waiting lists.

Mr. Stanley: The Government have already introduced a comprehensive range of measures to secure better use of the existing rented stock in both the public and private sectors, to promote low cost home ownership and to give local authorities the maximum discretion in using their capital allocations and capital receipts to meet the housing needs of their areas. I hope that local authorities will make full use of the measures that have been introduced.

Mr. Allaun: That is no good. Is not the answer to remove the financial straitjacket on local authorities? Is it not damned nonsense to talk about cutting public expenditure when the Government are increasing it by £5,000 per man per year as the dole queues grow? Does the Minister accept the figure of 428,380 unemployed in the building and related trades, such as brick, glass and timber, and that even that figure is increasing as the supply of council housing is cut?

Mr. Stanley: In his original question the hon. Member referred to the figure of 1·3 million families on local authority housing waiting lists. I draw his attention to the findings of the national dwelling and housing survey, carried out in 1977 by the Government that he supported, which showed that half of all persons registered on waiting lists were already in council accommodation. That suggests some scepticism about the sort of figures that he has been using. If he is anxious to help local authorities to get additional accommodation made available, I warmly commend him to urge all local authorities, and particularly Labour-controlled local authorities, to sell their vacant land and their vacant houses, to speed up the sale of council houses to sitting tenants, and to prevail on his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) to stop wrecking shortholds.

Sir Albert Costain: Does not the Minister consider that the question put by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) is absurd in the light of the fact that Labour Members continually ask for new measures and that, when the Government bring in the new measure of shorthold tenancies, Labour Members oppose it? Will the Minister accept that up to 100,000 landlords would be glad to let their houses but that the official Opposition are so vindictive and spiteful that they threaten that if landlords are foolish enough to let their houses the Opposition will ensure that they pay for it?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is totally inconsistent of the Opposition, on the one hand, to criticise the Government because there is insufficient rented accommodation in the public sector while trying, on the other hand, to wreck the provision of rented accommodation in the private sector.

Mr. Jay: Is it not quite natural that the worst figure for housing starts for 50 years should be recorded under the worst Government for 50 years?

Mr. Stanley: As the right hon. Gentleman may have heard if he was here at the beginning of questions, although he refers to a particular figure for starts, last year the largest number of local authority dwellings were improved since 1973.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my hon. Friend point out to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and the more obtuse of his colleagues that the 1·3 million families to which he referred did not arrive on the waiting list in May 1979? Will my hon. Friend tell the House what was the figure on the waiting list before the Government took office?

Mr. Stanley: The previous Labour Government took the same view on this issue as the present Government, which is that, in seeking information from local authorities, waiting lists were a very unreliable indicator of the housing need. Therefore, when the original housing investment programme system was created by the previous Administration, waiting list information was not one of the items sought from local authorities.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: As the Minister is so keen to divert attention from the building programme towards improvements, will he give an assurance that improvements this year will be as high as last year? Instead of looking at so-called new initiatives, will he go back to the old-fashioned policy and start to promote the building of houses?

Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Lady will be aware, the balance between new building and improvement this year will depend on the decisions taken by local authorities and not on decisions taken by Ministers.
As she refers to local initiatives and building, she may like to know that there is a very considerable response from local authorities to the Government's low cost home ownership programme. On the latest indications that we have, 105 authorities are making land sales for housing, 80 authorities have building-for-sale schemes on their own land, 59 have improvement-for-sale schemes, and 63 authorities are selling homes unimproved. About two-thirds of all local authorities are responding to the Government's initiatives.

Durham Beaches (Cleaning)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he now proposes to take in cleaning the Durham beaches; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): The working party which has looked into ways of clearing up the beaches recommended a pipeline system to convey the waste out to sea. While the system is technically acceptable, it would cost over £23 million to construct at 1979 prices, and it is the Government's view that such expenditure of public funds could not be justified at the present time.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that the National Coal Board nationally and the North-East board have made the most strenuous efforts in this matter, and that Government policies have prevented Easington district council and Durham county council from making contributions which they very much wanted to make? Is he further aware that the National Coal Board, again because of Government policies, is now unable to complete its plans?
Will the Minister agree that there is a moral obligation on the part of the nation, because of the North-East's industrial past, fully to finance the remainder of the board's plans? The Minister mentioned a figure of £23 million. It is the first time that I have heard that figure. If he thinks that I am exaggerating, may I invite him to come to Durham and visit the beaches with me?

Mr. Shaw: I am aware of the various facets of the considerable problem that the hon. Gentleman has raised. As he will know, the National Coal Board has undertaken to deal with the pipeline on the landward side but not on the sea side. Although I am aware that local authorities may have been considering offers, none has so far been forthcoming. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall wish to see him about considering a visit to the area.

Council House Sales

Mr. Murphy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the agreed system for valuations for council homes by tenants wishing to exercise their right to buy.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Murphy: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, if a local authority employs the district valuer to assess valuation, that department acts as both judge and jury if it provides a revaluation at the tenant's request? Is not a fairer appeals system needed?

Mr. Finsberg: No, Sir. The present arrangements for the district valuer do provide for an impartial professional determination, even when the initial valuation has been done by his office. In no case will a valuer who has initially valued a dwelling redetermine its value under section 11. Such redeterminations will be carried out personally by the district valuer or his deputy.

Mr. Joseph Dean: As the sale of council houses seems to be the sole basis of the Government's policy on council house tenants, is it not about time that the Government got their priorities right and gave greater consideration to those who are on waiting lists and who have no homes of their own?

Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman should learn the facts about the inaccuracies of waiting lists.

Poisonous Wastes (Import)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department intends to take to prevent the importation of poisonous wastes from neighbouring European countries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. King: Consignments of industrial waste imported into storage in recent months have indicated that some provisions of the Control of Pollution Act, including those governing temporary storage, may not be working as intended. They are therefore being reviewed. I have also had inquiries made of the Dutch authorities and await their response.

Mr. Hooley: Is it not absurd that our so-called friends in Europe should ship their highly dangerous phenolic wastes to Britain? Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the riff-raff fly-by-night countries—which are trying to make money out of polluting the environment—instead of constantly attacking local authorities, which have to keep the environment clean?

Mr. King: That is an extremely misleading supplementary to ask on a serious matter. The vast bulk of those wastes are not "highly dangerous". They are a nuisance and should not be here. I understand that some of them were not properly declared. I cannot comment further, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is the possibility of a prosecution being brought. We are anxious to ensure that goods entering Britain are properly described. If they are described as "goods in trade", that is what they should be, and not waste.

Partnership Schemes

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been allocated within the partnership schemes in each of the last two financial years for economic development in the areas in which the schemes operate.

Mr. David Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been allocated within the partnership schemes in each of the last two financial years for economic development in the areas in which the schemes operate.

Mr. King: In 1979–80 about £21 million was allocated under the urban programme to schemes specifically aimed at economic development in partnership areas, and for 1980–81 the figure was about £32 million. Many other partnership schemes also made a contribution to the economic regeneration of their areas. I aim to shift the balance further towards this type of activity.

Mr. Steen: Does it make sense to pump public money through partnership schemes to service industries in the inner areas and, at the same time, to pump even more public money—through rate abatement—into enterprise zones for shops and warehouses in areas in which private enterprise has failed in the past? Should not enterprise zones be confined to manufacturing industries?

Mr. King: That point was much debated during discussion on the Local Government, Planning and Land


Bill. We judged that the enterprise zone experiment should involve the minimum of restraint. Apart from certain limited controls on hypermarkets and on excessive concentrations of retailing, we proposed to make no restraints.

Mr. Dixon: When does the Minister intend to review the partnership and programme schemes? Is it not time that South Tyneside, which has a high rate of unemployment, was uprated? Given that public expenditure cuts are hitting all local authorities, is it not time that that authority was uprated from a programme to a partnership authority, and that more public money was pumped into the area?

Mr. King: My noble Friend Lord Bellwin, the Under-Secretary of State, reviewed all the programme and partnership authorities. Our difficulty was whether we could justify adding new districts and authorities to the list. We decided to stick to the list that had been adopted by the Labour Government. That is the right policy to follow.

Mr. William Shelton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Lambeth is one of the two inner London boroughs to receive funds from the inner city partnership? Does not that show the Government's awareness of Lambeth's needs?

Mr. King: We are well aware of that borough's needs and we are anxious to ensure that the funds available are used in the most effective way. We shall give priority to economic regeneration in those areas.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the partnership areas economic development is in decline? Is not he further aware that £32 million is a mere palliative compared with the massive public expenditure cuts, in rate support grant and the cut in the amount of help given to industry because of the Government's belittling of areas with development area status? Do we not need a complete change in the Government's economic and industrial policies if we are to help partnership areas?

Mr. King: We need a genuine sense of partnership between the local authority—of whatever political persuasion—and the private sector. Chambers of commerce, local industry, trade unions, voluntary agencies and everyone else should play their part. The hon. Gentleman's attempt to draw comparisons and to spread dissension is singularly unhelpful.

Education Committees (Voting)

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to change the position whereby co-opted members of education committees are permitted to vote.

Mr. King: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Marlow: Although most co-opted members are entirely objective in their assessments, from time to time some will have direct or indirect vested interests in the issues on which they are called to vote. In those authorities where there is a close political balance, would it not be fairer to all if that right to vote were withdrawn?

Mr. King: Primarily that is a matter that concerns the standing orders of the authorities concerned. There are clear rules regarding behaviour if it is a matter of vested interests or declaration of interest.

Mr. Cryer: Is it not true that the standard of conduct in local authorities is, by and large, strictly applied and that the standard of conduct in this House is much sloppier? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that for this House to criticise local authorities, which have improved and conducted their affairs very strictly, hardly stands examination, when the House has not troubled to debate the Royal Commission report on standards of conduct in public life, which recommended legislative changes for this place, let alone education authorities?

Mr. King: I hope that the standard of conduct both as regards local authorities and the House is of the highest order.

Home Improvement Grants

Mr. Eastham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities are now no longer offering discretionary home improvement grants.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Figures available to my Department suggest that about 40 authorities—11 per cent. of the total—are not offering discretionary grants at present.

Mr. Eastham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 1 million families are living in houses that are unfit for habitation and that 1·5 million families live in houses that lack basic amenities? In addition, the Government's building record is deplorable. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the recent statement of the Environmental Health Officers Association to the effect that houses that are being built now will have to last 400 years unless the Minister takes urgent action?

Mr. Finsberg: I have read the paper. People hold differing views and I do not happen to share that of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jessel: If a man wants to improve his house, why should he expect his fellow ratepayers to pay for part of the cost?

Mr. Finsberg: Parliament has made the availability of grants possible. It is up to individuals to decide whether they want to make use of the legislation.

Inner City Areas (Private Enterprise)

Mr. Dover: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the involvement of private enterprise in the inner city areas.

Mr. Heseltine: No. That is why I am seeking every opportunity to associate representatives of industry and commerce with those of my programmes which affect urban areas.

Mr. Dover: Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the excellent work done by some banks and building societies in inner city areas? Will he publicise their efforts and encourage other private firms to come in?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because some exciting new initiatives are being pursued by such institutions. I should like to see such initiatives being taken on a larger scale. I am considering what I can do to publicise more widely the benefits that have come from a genuine partnership between the public and private sectors in funding new capital schemes.

Mr. Spearing: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that private enterprise is attracted to the controversial enterprise zones largely because the Exchequer intends to pay the rates? If the right hon. Gentleman wanted an experiment in planning, why did he not carry out the experiment without the Exchequer's subsidy?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that the hon. Member will realise that the enterprise zone package is a coherent package. He is right in saying that there is a benefit as a result of the rates subsidies which will be borne by the Exchequer, but new planning regimes are part and parcel of trying to give particular focus to those areas. They add up to a coherent package.

Mr. Bob Dunn: I welcome that answer from my right hon. Friend. Does he not agree that the inner city dweller can best be served if local authorities embark on a radical programme of privatisation of local authorities' services and functions? Is it not a shame that many local authorities have not followed the example of the borough of Southend?

Mr. Heseltine: I am told that there are considerable opportunities for privatisation of public services, but many people considering such options do not take account of the considerable and positive gain that flows from the private sector, having once become established, exploiting its skills on a much wider scale.

International Sporting Contacts

Mr. John Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will meet the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss international sporting contacts.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): I have frequent and regular contact with the chairman of the Sports Council and will be seeing him again shortly.

Mr. Carlisle: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Sports Council, will he encourage him to discuss soccer hooliganism with his international counterparts? Will he also encourage him to initiate an international conference whereby methods can be considered that will prevent those disgraceful scenes in Basle which brought great shame to all Englishmen abroad?

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his idea. I will talk to Dick Jeeps about that when I see him next. The relatively few spectators who behaved so disgracefully in Switzerland deserve our utter condemnation. They let this country down. At least, things were better in Hungary and I am glad to say that England won the match.

Mr. Denis Howell: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Sports council, will he draw his attention to the fact that it is not in the interests of British sport for the chairman to be acting as campaign manager for South African sporting interests? Will he also tell him that such action is seriously jeopardising the future of the Commonwealth Games and will create the maximum embarrassment for the Prime Minister at the forthcoming Prime Minister's Conference, when the Gleneagles agreement is bound to be discussed? Finally, will he tell the chairman that South Africa must convince world sport

that it can be re-entered, because it was world sport and not politicians that put South Africa out of international sport?

Mr. Monro: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. I have absolute confidence in the chairman of the Sports Council. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is overplaying his hand about Dick Jeeps' interest in South Africa. I take the point he has made that it is world sport that banned South Africa from international competition. The first steps back might come from the International Athletic Federation or FIFA, but overall, of course, we are concerned about the Commonwealth Games in Australia next year. We must watch all these matters very carefully.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: When my hon. Friend is talking to the Sports Council chairman, will he ask him to try to persuade football clubs, when they take supporters abroad, to accept direct responsibility for supervising those groups of supporters? Does he agree that the directors and managers of the club should send their people to ensure that the supporters behave in an orderly fashion?

Mr. Monro: I note what my hon. Friend says. Stemming from the decisions made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), UEFA has strict regulations laid down about the playing of cup matches in Europe. It is a sad fact that UEFA and FIFA have not fulfilled the regulations on segregation of spectators and the distribution of tickets. If those regulations were carried out, that might reduce the problems faced by spectators going to the Continent.

Rate Support Grant (London)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total sum of money he expects, based upon the latest information available, to allocate in rate support grant to local authorities in London in 1981–82; and how this compares with what they would have received if the earlier rate support grant formula had still been in operation.

Mr. King: At the time of the rate support grant last December, London authorities were estimated to receive £1,316 million in grant in 1981–82 against £1,424 million which they would have received if the previous system had operated in 1981–82. As a result of their expenditure considerably exceeding the Government's guidelines, they are likely to lose in excess of a further £100 million. However, my right hon. Friend has requested a revision of budgets, and I hope that London authorites will be able to bring back their expenditure into line with their targets, and thus minimise any loss of grant.

Mr. Dubs: Given the amount of money that London local authorities are losing in the current financial year through the Government's policies, will the Minister accept personal responsibility for obliging some London boroughs to have a supplementary rate later this year?

Mr. King: Whether a supplementary rate will be required later this year will entirely depend on the spending policies of each local authority. The spending of local government at present is probably closer to the all-time record in real terms than it has ever been in the history of this country. I do not believe that it is impossible for local government as a whole to achieve the reduction in targets that we have set it. If that is done the reduction in


grant that each local authority suffers will be minimised and there will be no need for significant supplementary rates.

Mr. Squire: While accepting completely the desirability of local authorities complying with Government guidelines, as they have under previous Governments, does my right hon. Friend agree that London in particular has suffered, first, from a major shift of resource in one year, and, secondly, from the adoption of guidelines which, in London perhaps more than anywhere else, in 1978–79, have been particularly pernicious?

Mr. King: I have recognised that, as London has gained in previous years, this year London has lost some share of grant. The impact of that switch will be affected by the degree to which economies can be made this year to minimise what would otherwise be consequential grant changes.

Mr. Kaufman: I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's reference to revised budgets. Will he now give straight answers to the questions I put to the Secretary of State, which the Secretary of State dodged and avoided? First, with reference to paragraph 9 of the draft circular, will he say whether that paragraph stands and whether he intends to send auditors in to local authorities to check their inflation assumptions when they differ from his own? Secondly, with reference to paragraph 10 will he tell us under what legal authority he has sent out this blackmailing circular to local authorities, threatening to deny them rate support grant unless they knuckle under to his orders to make returns by 31 July? Thirdly, will he confirm that the rate support grant applications that have already been submitted are valid and stand? May I have precise answers to those three questions.

Mr. King: I recognise the ability of the right hon. Gentleman to extract the maximum amount of political excitement out of a rather boring technical circular to treasurers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Boring?"] I shall deal with the three questions that I have been asked. The first is whether grants will be paid if a revised budget form is not received. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to study the operation under both Governments of the grant claim system, he will see that no grant can be paid to any authority unless it returns its application form. That is the standard way in which grant is paid. The House would be the first to complain if it were done otherwise. There is no more significance to that sentence than that. I am sorry to have to kill that issue before the right hon. Gentleman gets excited.
The next question deals with the inflation assumption and whether there will be a change. This matter is under discussion with the local authority associations. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that there is a distinction between volume and inflation. It is not correct, as was suggested by one authority, that we are seeking to impose the Government's view of inflation. At the end of the year it will be necessary to ensure that a fair apportionment has been made between volume and inflation. Anyone familiar with the normal method of Government financial management will know why that is so. The circular is a technical circular for treasurers. It is not some new draconian step by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

State. Although some people appear to have misunderstood it, if the right hon. Gentleman cares to check with the associations he will find that they are now rather better informed.

Supplementary Rate

Mr. Butcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have indicated that they plan to levy a supplementary rate this year.

Mr. King: I am concerned at the reports that a number of authorities intend to levy supplementary rates this year, although I have had no official notification of their intention to do so.
I very much hope that any such authorities will reduce their proposed expenditure in the course of revising their budgets as we have requested, and that such reductions will remove the need to levy a supplementary rate.

Mr. Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Coventry recently had a 37 per cent. rate increase imposed upon it, that supplementary rate increases are expected from the West Midlands county council and the Coventry district council, and that the citizens of Coventry are looking desperately to my right hon. Friends for protection against these appalling circumstances?

Mr. King: The first responsibility for the rate levels in those areas is that of the councils concerned. I view with horror what my hon. Friend has just said, considering as I do the impact that it will have on the industrial and commercial activity in those areas. I am appalled at the prospects that such rate levels should be imposed. It is for that reason that we have called for economy in local government. Just as the late Anthony Crosland had to say that such expenditure could not be afforded, for the same reasons we have to deliver the same message.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman stop misleading the House on the crucial issue of the circular? Is he aware that the local authority associations do not regard it as a technical matter, and that they are full of deep anxiety about the interference by the Government that the circular involves? Will he confirm that one association, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, has requested the withdrawal of paragraph 9, because it regards sending auditors into the town halls as unacceptable? Is he withdrawing paragraph 9? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Front Benchers are no more entitled than Back Benchers to ask more than one supplementary question at a time.

Mr. King: I confirm that this technical circular is under discussion between the associations. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to check, he will find that the matter is now rather better understood by the one association that was concerned about it. I think that there is some misunderstanding about the inflation assumption. I have tried to clarify it across the Floor. It is a technical matter, and we want to avoid misunderstanding. This is a technical circular to treasurers, who have to complete the return forms, and we are anxious to ensure that it is as clear as possible.

Mr. Garel-Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Question No. 24, in the name of my hon. Friend the


Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), inquiring about the non-operation of right-to-buy provisions by local authorities was passed over, and as not one applicant in my constituency has yet received an offer—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is using the guise of a point of order to make a different point, and that is to be discouraged at any time.

Hotels and Restaurants (Control of Service Charges)

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the administration of service charges in hotels and restaurants; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is simple. It is to give a fair deal to the customers in a hotel or restaurant who pay the service charge on their bill believing that it will go to the staff who gave them the service. It is also designed to give a fair deal to the staff who provide the service, who at present have no legal entitlement to the service charge or any right to information about its allocation, the timing of its payment, or even its existence.
The average person using a hotel or restaurant enters into a contract when ordering a room or a meal. He or she is obliged to pay the service charge if it is advertised on the menu or on the room rates. It it is not paid, a civil action can be raised by the hotel or restaurant to recover the amount.
No such legal status is accorded to the distribution of the accumlated service charge. Instead of the charge being the property of the staff, as the vast majority of customers suppose it to be, it is "massaged" by the management of the hotel or restaurant and either distributed on their behalf to the staff, in which case both tax and national insurance levies are paid, or passed to a tronc—an independent fund—with elected or even non-elected representatives of the staff administering the distribution of the money. In that case tax is paid on it, but national insurance contributions are not.
Self-evidently, there is a different system for every hotel or restaurant in the country. There is also scope for the most inspired fiddling and ripping off at every stage. Customers can easily be ripped-off, because they pay the service charge irrespective of the quality of the service provided. Even a Fawlty Towers hotel, with the soup poured over the customer's head and spaghetti dumped in his lap, will charge the 10 or 12½ per cent. service charge—a form of coerced generosity that makes no sense.
Even when the service is first-rate the customer has no guarantee that the money that he pays in lieu of a special tip is going to the best staff, the whole staff, or to the staff at all. A former hotel worker, who is now manager of a restaurant, wrote to me this week saying:
There is no doubt that hotel companies and proprietors more often than not see the service charge as pure profit—the cream on the cake.
Coming from somebody who is now in management and has worked in a number of hotels, that gives a stark explanation of the reality of what happens to the customer service charges in all too many hotels and restaurants.
If they have to pay the levy, customers have the right to know that it goes not to swell profits but as additional revenue to the staff. For the staff in hotels and restaurants, the service charge is not simply a frill. For thousands it is a livelihood. It can make up one-third to even a half of the earnings of many of them, for all their working lives. It is no mean amount, and such staff deserve protection—a legal right to what was designed for them.
Not only should the service charge be the legal property of the staff; they must have the right to know how it is paid, by what system, when it is to be paid, and who is

to make the decisions on it. For too long hotel staff have tolerated systems of paying out that have meant that the old hands in the hotels control the troncs, paying out at the end of the season and depriving any employee who left before then, or paying out according to a rigid seniority system, an attendance system, or even a system based on age.
Wages in this low-paid, ill-organised, high-turnover industry cannot be left to the whim of any senior hall porter in a four-star hotel or an even more iniquitous system than that. Service charges are no small beer, even to the Government. The Inland Revenue checks the troncs in hotels and restaurants and levies tax on what it expects hotel staff to receive from them. It also assesses tips, and taxes them. However, when I asked the Treasury not long ago how many independent troncs there were in the country it said that it did not know.
Millions of pounds have been lost to the Treasury because of the non-levying of national insurance contributions on tronc payouts in this huge industry. In addition, poorly paid hotel staff have suffered, and will continue to suffer, when they claim earnings-related benefits and pensions.
Tipping gratuities, service charges and backhanders are all part of a bygone feudal era. They degrade the giver and the receiver and encourage the blackmail State, in which one pays over the odds for a taxi but not for a bus; for a hotel porter, but not for a supermarket attendant; for a waiter, but not for a newsagent.
The supposedly equalising service charge was born to spread the rewards of the major service industry beyond those who simply deliver the plate. We are now seeing daily that it has become a questionable baseline for additional gratuities.
It is a pernicious trend that sees this large, important and ill-done-by labour force in the hotel and catering industry continue as a low-wage, low-status occupation, deferring more and more to a reluctantly generous band of customers. As a former official of the Hotel and Catering Workers Union, I know that the vast majority of people employed in this huge industry want, and always have wanted, a fair wage for a fair day's work. They do not want to have to depend on the generosity, coerced or spontaneous, of the customers and of the institutions in which they work. The Bill would be a small step towards making sense and sanity of an irrational, unprofessional, illogical and outdated wages structure. It is a step that I believe would be widely welcomed.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Robertson, Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, Mr. Robert C. Brown, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. James Johnson, Mr. Neil Carmichael, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Michael English, Mr. Frank R. White, Mr. Giles Radice and Mr. Don Dixon.

HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS (CONTROL OF SERVICE CHARGES)

Mr. George Robertson accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the administration of service charges in hotels and restaurants, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 July and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

Education Bill (Selection of Amendments)

Mr. Daffyd Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a question on the selection of amendments for the Education Bill. As you will be aware, both my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and I intervened on Second Reading. However, neither of us served on the Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill. My hon. Friend is a member of the Select Committee on Educaion and Science and has a detailed knowledge of, and interest in, the subject. I have a personal involvement in special education for handicapped children. I hope to contribute from that point of view. Against that background, I point out that only one of the seven amendments that we put forward has been called. I draw your attention particularly, Mr. Speaker, to amendment No. 10, dealing with the need for educational provision in hospital for handicapped childen who find themselves in hospital. This matter was not discussed in Committee. I feel that it should be raised on Report.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, when a Bill of his sort comes before the House I lean over backwards and do my utmost to try to be fair. I hope that I approach every Bill in that way. An issue relating to handicapped people obviously gives me cause for special consideration. It is unfortunate that some of the hon. Gentleman's amendments were beyond the scope of the Bill. Some of the issues have been discussed upstairs in Committee and voted on. Amendment No. 10 was covered by another amendment debated upstairs, which explains why it was not selected on Report. I must remind the House that there is no point in holding a Committee stage if all that happened in Committee is repeated again on Report. That is the difficulty that faces the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respect and understand fully your sense of fairness and your difficulties. I appeal, however, for reconsideration of the decision not to select for debate amendment No. 2, which prevents local education authorities from consigning disabled children to special schools away from their friends and non-disabled peers, and sometimes even away from home, merely because the bricks and mortar of local schools are unsuitable for their needs. I appreciate that there was reference to the amendment in Standing Committee by two hon. Members. However, many organisations, including some representing disabled people, would like the issue to be debated here today. This most important amendment could profoundly affect the educational opportunities of disabled children.
There is another factor, Mr. Speaker, that I should like you to consider. Earl Mansfield, Minister of State, Scottish Office, moved in another place on 2 June an amendment to the access provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 as they affect Scottish law, including section 8 of the Act concerning schools and other educational buildings. The amendment is one of considerable importance and represents a development that hon. Members should take into account here today before completing the remaining stages of this Bill. In particular, a debate on amendment No. 2 would give the

Minister an opportunity to inform hon. Members how the Government's initiative in another place affects their thinking on access to schools under clause 1 of the Bill. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will want to do all that is possible to help. I hope that you can accede to my request.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he would seek to raise this point of order. I have had an opportunity to investigate the matter at some length. The whole House is aware of the right hon. Gentleman's special interest, and also that of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), in this matter. I find that the hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), for Caerphilly (Mr. Hudson Davies), for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), and the Minister all referred to the matter on a considerable scale in the fifth and sixth sittings of the Standing Committee. I re-read the proceedings this morning. I am, of course, prepared to look at the issue again, but I do not want to raise false hopes that the selection of amendments can be reconsidered. When a matter has been discussed in Standing Committee it is unfair that it should be repeated on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. All hon. Members, I am sure, appreciate the effort that you have devoted to considering the matter and your response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). Your reflections on the proceedings in Standing Committee are correct. A further consideration, however, in the crucial nature and relevance of amendment No. 2 to the principle of the Bill, as defined within the terms of the title of the Bill. As the debate in Standing Committee shows, the contention is that there should be a different provision for children with mobility difficulties, as opposed to those with learning difficulties. They may be disadvantaged by local education authorities that do not acknowledge the principle that hon. Members would like to see fully legislated for in a Bill of this nature.
A second consideration is that the law is in the course of being changed in two respects on the crucial matter of access. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, like myself, will acknowledge the expertise of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe. Since the law is in the process of being reconsidered and changed in another place, in two pieces of proposed legislation, I hope that hon. Members, depending on your discretion and reconsideration, will be able to make their contribution to that reconsideration of the definition of access, especially as it affects education. As you will readily acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, the question of access is essential and, indeed, is the major determinant of how disabled and handicapped people are likely to be able to conduct the rest of their lives.

Mr. Wigley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to underline what the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said about a measure being discussed in another place which relates to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Since the matter was debated in the Standing Committee on the Education Bill, the Government have accepted certain amendments in the other place relating to access. These have a material bearing on access to education institutions.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and also to the hon. Member


for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). I think that I am right in saying that he is the honourable Member for Bedwellty—

Mr. Kinnock: That is correct.

Mr. Speaker: —so far. I am not taking sides. I am completely impartial. Bearing in mind the arguments of the two hon. Members and also that of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I shall look at the matter again. Hon. Members must bear in mind the comments that I made earlier. The House expects me to try to restrict the Report stage to matters that have not been discussed, but could have been discussed, upstairs in Committee. I shall, however, give further consideration to the matter to see whether I can help the right hon. Gentleman and the two hon. Gentlemen. I shall let my views be known at least by 6 pm.

Orders of the Day — Education Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

DUTY OF HEALTH AUTHORITY TO NOTIFY PARENTS ETC.

'If an Area or District Health Authority, in the course of exercising any of its functions in relation to a child who is under the age of five years, forms the opinion that he has, or probably has, special educational needs, the authority shall—

(a) inform his parent of its opinion and of its duty under this section; and
(b) after giving the parent an opportunity to discuss that opinion with an officer of the authority, bring it to the attention of the appropriate local education authority.'.—[Mr. Carter-Jones.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Duty to notify parents about relevant support organisation.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I wish strongly to support new clause 2. I understand that new clause 1 will have a fair wind from the Government. I want the House to note the date—10 June 1981. Is it not a sad reflection on the House that we have had to wait until 1981 to place on the statute book a simple provision which everyone believes should have been there for a long, long time? The new clause provides:
'If an Area or District Health Authority, in the course of exercising any of its functions in relation to a child who is under the age of five years, forms the opinion that he has, or probably has, special educational needs, the authority shall—
(a) inform his parent of its opinion and of its duty under this section.'
That would be a normal action to expect under any circumstances, but we are having to enact a law to enforce it.
Many hospitals may be upset by that provision. I ask them not to be upset. If they have carried out that practice, good luck to them. They have our full blessing. The new clause aims to deal with the arrogant people in the medical profession—thank goodness they are in a minority—who do not accord that right to parents. I praise all hospitals who give parents that right.
The new clause also provides that an authority should (b) after giving the parent an opportunity to discuss that opinion with an officer of the authority, bring it to the attention of the appropriate local education authority.'.
Those two provisions are all that the clause contains. I understand that the Government will look favourably upon it. I am not a parliamentary draftsman, and the clause had been drafted by an expert. He may have the legality correct, but much of the morality and real thinking is missing. I wish to spend a few moments speaking directly to the Secretary of State. Apart from granting us the new clause, I ask on behalf of all hon. Members and of parents outside that when he writes the guidelines to the Act he ensures that the spirit behind the new clause is enshrined in them.
One thing is certain—if a child under five is born with a handicap but receives no attention until he goes to school, he will experience a double handicap. In many cases of sensory difficulties it is possible to reverse the trend and prepare the child for when he starts school so that he will not suffer from a double disadvantage.
I wish to read a letter from a constituent to show the importance of the new clause. She is not a feckless person, but a woman who has had four children, the fourth being born with some form of handicap. She is a professional lady and a councillor. She should have known her way around these matters. However, with a newborn baby she found herself in difficulties. Many mothers will find themselves in a similar position. They need our help. My constituent has given me permission to read part of her letter. She says:
There were many moves I had to make to get my child monitored for handicap and these took a long time. Many mothers would feel at a loss in this situation and vital remedial attention could be neglected at the optimum time.
I would therefore urge you to exert whatever pressure you can upon the Government to recognise the social, economic and practical reasons for careful screening of children of pre-school age.
I repeat that my constituent is not a feckless person. She would say that she could cope in all situations, excepting this. She needs help and advice. I shall return to that theme when I speak to new clause 2 in the name of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who regrets that he cannot be present.
The education and training of a handicapped child cannot begin too early. He has to be taught skills that an ordinary child spontaneously picks up during his early years, such as speech and movement. I stress the words "speech and movement". Early stimulation and experience are vital for the handicapped child to ensure that his handicaps do not trap him in frustration and boredom.
Often a spastic child cannot be diagnosed for a few months. He will have difficulty in some of the muscles and the tendency is to exercise the strong muscles and to neglect the weaker muscles. Unless he receives physiotherapy treatment quickly, he will suffer further handicap and damage. Physiotherapy should begin during his first year to help him make correct and useful movements. I am not using the esoteric language of the academics; I am trying to use the simple language of ordinary people dealing with their own children.
Left to himself, a spastic child will choose the easiest way and use the strongest muscles, thus letting the weakest ones become useless. Contraction and tension of the muscles could develop and cause a secondary handicap which, when the child goes to school, could be a tertiary handicap, which would make his position even worse.
Some children have speech difficulties. Speech therapy should begin early. It is essential to encourage correct muscular control through correct voicing, breathing, sucking, swallowing and blowing. The child then moves to babbling and, gradually, the introduction of syllables and words until finally simple phrases and sentences are reached. The speech therapist can help so that when the child starts school he does not face the embarrassment of difficulty with communication.
I find it dreadful that I am asking, in June 1981, for such provisions to be incorporated in legislation. It is a matter of right for everyone which should never have been

overlooked. I understand that the Minister will accept the new clause—not, I hope, because it has no resource implications, but because it is the right thing to do. We should grant such a right, and that should be done here and now.
I come now to the child with hearing difficulties. Ordinary children acquire knowledge through hearing. A child who cannot hear needs to be taught, trained and made ready to receive education. The same happens with the sensory handicap of blindness. Much can be done for the sensorially handicapped, physically handicapped and mentally handicapped if we start now. It could be argued that such provisions are economically sound. However, I am not here today to advance an economic argument. I am here to advance what I hope is a sound, practical argument. We should provide for all handicapped children.
I wish to refer to new clause 2 standing in the names of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely, myself and other hon. Members. I accept that there is difficulty in drafting a suitable clause. However, I ask the House to remember my constituent—that able woman who knew the difficulties of administration and said that she needed help—and understand that the new clause attempts to say to her and others in a similar position "There are voluntary organisations that might be able to assist you with your problem."
4 pm
The voluntary organisations in their specialties acquire a tremendous amount of skill, knowledge and experience, and they are able to offer that freely. In Committee the Minister told the hon. Member for Isle of Ely that there may not be facilities for voluntary organisations in all areas. In a superficial sense we could accept the reality of the Minister's argument. However, if he wants to sponsor and stimulate voluntary organisations he should give them a challenging task to perform. He should say to them "A duty is being imposed upon the local education authority and the area health authority. Therefore, they will have to consult you." I am sure that voluntary organisations such as MENCAP and the Spastics Society and all the organisations associated with the blind and the deaf would provide the necessary facilities.
I hope that new clause 1 will be accepted. I urge the Minister to write in the memorandum a note to the effect that we are thinking of neonates as well and that consultants have a responsibility to ensure that adequate training is given, and, wherever necessary, education, to allow the child to be a total child and overcome his handicap. I ask the Minister to reconsider new clause 2 and to ascertain whether there is a way in which the resources of voluntary organisations can be marshalled to provide help for specific handicaps.

Mr. Speaker: I have had an opportunity to reconsider amendment No. 2, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). I have made arrangements for it to be put on the selection list to be called and to be debated and, if necessary, voted upon. It will be called after we have discussed new clause 8.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and, I am sure the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), may I say that we are most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker? I am sure that our attitude will be shared by all those outside the House who are closely observing our proceedings.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The whole House will be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the personal attention that you are paying to the Bill, which matters so much to a minority who are beset with serious problems.
I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said about new clauses 1 and 2, the latter tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). We are considering the plight of those who have received news that will have the most serious and dramatic consequences for themselves and for the child of whom they will take care. In Committee many cases were quoted and examples given of the bewilderment of parents in those circumstances and the difficulty that they have with bureaucracy, even when it is operating at its best, let alone when it sometimes proves unresponsive and unhelpful.
In Committee my hon. Friend quoted two cases which were relevant respectively to the new clauses which we are now discussing. He referred to the parent of a spina bifida child, who said:
Nobody tells you about your child; I still don't know the name of what is wrong with her, I've seen it written down on doctors letters but … you ask them at the school, and hospitals and they just say 'I don't know'".
It is precisely to deal with that bewilderment that new clause 1 is on the Amendment Paper, and I welcome it.
My hon. Friend quoted someone who said:
This terrible depression comes over you. If I could have seen someone I would have liked someone who had the same, or nearly the same, problem, the same kind of worry. A parent. Someone you could have really poured your heart out to and known that they could have fully understood."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee; 2 April 1981, c. 475.]
It is that circumstance that links new clause 2 with new clause 1 in these discussions.
The purpose of new clause 2 is to extend the informing function that is embodied in new clause 1—the responsibility on the area health authority to tell the parents and to take that a stage further and require the authority to tell the parents about support organisations, voluntary organisations, which may be relevant. I think that there was a general understanding among Committee Members that the Minister was hoping to meet that requirement as well as the requirement that has been met by new clause 1 when he replied to the debate in Committee.
I shall explain why I think that new clause 2 contains an important principle. The Bill is almost the only response to the Warnock report and there is much concern that this is legislation for integration without resources and without expenditure. We must all be conscious of the fear that the Bill will create expectations that will be little satisfied. That is exactly the fear that proved to have good grounds in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. However, we are discussing an area in which the Bill can achieve positive good and where it may be said afterwards, "At least in that respect our lot was improved", even if there turns out to be disappointment that, because of lack of resources, some of the other features of the Bill do not materialise effectively in the short term.
The Warnock committee stressed the importance of support organisations and the need for parents to know about them. It reported:
Parents of children with disabilities or significant difficulties

should also be informed at an early stage about voluntary organisations and associations of parents similarly placed. These can offer support and encouragement to parents, give information about the different services available and, in many areas, provide pre-school opportunities for young children with disabilities.
That is what parents most need. They want other parents to talk to, with whom they can share experiences.
It is essential for handicapped children to receive help as early as possible before school age. The hon. Member for Eccles said that much can be done before school age and that often it is not likely to be done if the parent is not in touch with other parents who have a shared experience. The social worker and the local doctor may have only limited experience of the handicap. It may be the only handicap of the sort that has arisen in the area for several years.
It is only through a specialist organisation that the parent is likely to be put in touch with the possibility of pre-school help for the child. That underlines the need for parents to be informed at the earliest stage about support organisations. At present it is a matter of luck whether they are informed.
If the handicap is well known, the relevant organisation will be known nationally—for example, The Spastics Society. However, the support organisations for less well-known handicaps are naturally much less well known although no less effective in the work that they do. The Warnock committee quoted the research carried out by the York university social policy research unit. It appeared that many parents of handicapped children had little contact with either statutory or voluntary organisations. That encouraged it to stress the need to give that
When the issue was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend, with the strong support of other members of the Committee, the Under-Secretary of State's response seemed to imply a willingness to try to meet my hon. Friend's case, although he expressed reservations about practicalities and drafting details. In his response to the principles of notification and the need for parents to be informed of support organisations, the hon. Gentleman left the Committee with the impression that the Government were anxious to meet the case and were prepared to try to do so. He said:
I suggest that a clause be drafted for Report in the names of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and also the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). The services of my Department and all of us will be given to make sure that we get a tight clause which will fulfil all the needs that we have mentioned."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee; 2 April 1981, c. 478.]
I welcome the effort that has gone into the drafting of new clause 1, and I am glad to see it on the Amendment Paper. However, the linking of those names and the tenor of the debate suggested to my hon. Friend and others that the Government wanted to meet both principles. Therefore, my hon. Friend took up the matter with the Department and the Under-Secretary in the hope of satisfaction, and withdrew the new clause.
The Minister replied that, after thought, he had decided that he could not meet that criterion or draft a clause that would embody the principle of giving details of the support organisations. I studied his letter carefully, and I do not believe that his arguments in that respect were convincing. He said:
In the first instance, it is more often than not impossible at birth for doctors or midwives to know whether a child is indeed handicapped … Secondly, even when serious handicap is obvious to doctors at birth the news must be broken very carefully to the parents".


It is obvious that both those statements are true, but to regard them as arguments against what my hon. Friend sought to do is to misread my hon. Friend's intention and the new clause. The intention was that as soon as the handicap could be indentified the information should be provided, and provided again after the parents had had time to absorb the full emotional impact of the news.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is it not dangerous that the Minister seems to be making a judgment that the needs of the parent are more important than the needs of the child? Although we should have compassion and concern for the parents, surely the needs of the child are paramount and we should ensure that the child gets the appropriate help as soon as is necessary.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I thought that we had passed that stage. New clause 1 is an attempt to make it clear that the House is not prepared to allow essential information to be withheld from parents because of the medical custom and practice that people should not be told the truth. Perhaps an element of it can still be seen in the reply that I just read, that it might be bad for parents to be given, in addition to the other things that they have been told, the details of the support organisations at that stage. That does not stand up as an argument. We do not seek to prescribe a form of words or a manner in which doctors should convey the information. We simply seek to ensure that parents are given the information.
The Under-Secretary's second argument against embodying this issue in the law is what he described as
the technical problem, of defining 'support organisation' in law. By this, we understand 'voluntary body', which has itself no status in law".
The Under-Secretary went on to talk about the possibility of using "charitable status" as the basis, and enlarged on the technical difficulty of defining "support organisation".
I reject that approach. We are not talking about giving a large tax advantage to support organisations. We are not discussing something that can be abused and therefore requires the narrowest and tightest statutory definition. We are talking about the need to tell parents about organisations which we know exist, whose abilities and contribution we know well, and which the Department and the Department of Health and Social Services know well. There is no technical problem about identifying those organisations.
In a moment I shall come to the quality of those organisations, but the Minister is going down a blind alley if he supposes that elaborate drafting is needed to safeguard ourselves against calling something a support organisation that is not a registered charity, or whatever. We are discussing organisations which we, as laymen interested in the subject, know about and have no difficulty in defining.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Would it not be possible for an organisation, an umbrella such as RADAR, to have the authority to suggest an organisation? It is a reputable organisation, so could not the local authority ask it about the best place for getting help? RADAR, with its umbrella organisation, could do it.

Mr. Beith: There are all sorts of means by which this requirement could be met. The hon. Gentleman has

suggested a sensible way to do it. Parliamentary draftsmen should not be allowed to stand in the way of common sense. It is obvious to all of us what we are talking about and that it can be done. The difficulty of drafting an appropriate phrase may be insuperable if it involves complicated tax law, but it is not insuperable in trying to give practical help to people through voluntary organisations.
The Minister said that the third difficulty is that 
Local support organisations are not always well organised or uniformly good at providing the kind of support that we would all wish parents in this situation to have".
That is a diplomatically worded paragraph, and we know what he means, but for parents in this situation almost any help is better than none. Even the smallest group of ill-organised parents who have a shared experience is better than no parents at all and nobody with whom to talk over the problem.
We all know the organisations involved in this sphere well enough to recommend the principle without any real fear that people will fall into the hands of organisations that are so badly run that they are a handicap or a problem. However, if it were a difficulty, there are ways round it. The Department could have a register of organisations and set criteria and standards if it felt that that was necessary. It could have a list of recommended organisations.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Surely nothing has been sacrificed, because the National Health Service has the right to choose the local organisations or national organisations.

Mr. Beith: Again I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The National Health Service has extensive experience of co-operating with voluntary organisations. Our NHS could not run without that co-operation. There is ample experience in every health authority of which are the reputable and reliable voluntary organisations.
Many representations have been received from outside bodies. When the matter was being discussed in Committee, the director of MENCAP wrote:
Even if a local network is not perfect, many are and it would be quite wrong to deny parents the support of the relevant organisation, just because some of these organisations may not be able to cope with the situation".
He said later:
I would go further: should this clause be accepted all these organisations would be eager to extend their existing services and do their best to make the clause work satisfactorily.
After all, what would make these organisations better but the involvement of more parents, so that every parent with that handicap in the family has the knowledge to join and take part in the organisations? Their finances would be stronger if parents subscribed to them. Their local effort would be stronger if more parents belonged to them. It would be in all our interests if they were strengthened.
Brian Rix wrote at the same stage, when the matter was being discussed in Committee, saying that changes along these lines
would be a considerable improvement on the present Bill and there appears to be no conflict … as far as these … proposals are concerned".
The principle should surely have been accepted from the beginning. It is disappointing to many hon. Members that the Government have sought technical objections to exclude it from the parts of the Bill where in other respects they have been prepared to make improvements. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us today that he is prepared to find another way of meeting the objective. Otherwise, we shall have to return to the matter time after


time—for example, in another place—because it is generally understood that parents with this difficulty need the support of other parents and of voluntary organisations, and should be told about those organisations.
It is in the nature of large public bodies such as health authorities that requirements such as this are sometimes forgotten or ignored. We want to find a way of making every health authority realise that, just as it must inform parents about a handicap, so it must tell them what voluntary help is available to them. The Bill can do that without spending any money. At least let us achieve that much.

Mr. John Hannam: I support the speeches that have been made by the hon. Members for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I particularly support new clause 1. As the hon. Member for Eccles was, I think, helping to land Concorde at the time, I moved a similar new clause on his behalf in Committee. It is good to see the hon. Gentleman present today, and I am glad that he has moved new clause 1.
The two new clauses deal sensibly with the problem of communication at the time of the discovery of handicap in a young child or baby. New clause 1 places the responsibility quite squarely on a health authority to inform the local education authority about a child with special needs. New clause 2 enables parents to be informed of the various support organisations that can help with the handicapped child. Together the new clauses provide a two-pronged process, in that the information will go from the health authority to the local education authority and from the health authority to the parent. We must not forget the importance of keeping parents fully involved and informed Some of the later amendments return to that theme.
MENCAP, the national society for mentally handicapped children and adults, has been particularly concerned about new clause 2 and feels that it should be accepted if possible. It has produced a great deal of evidence which shows how stress and unhappiness can be reduced after the birth of a handicapped child if help, advice, information and good counselling are made available to the parents.
Many clearly defined local organisations can deal with the different handicaps. I am sure that they would be willing to extend their services and help if that was required under the provisions of the new clause. All the evidence points, not to the sudden discovery of a degree of handicap, but more to a gradual unfolding of the degree of handicap, the extent of the difficulty and what should be done about it.
I therefore believe that, taken together, the new clauses will provide the necessary links between the multi-disciplinary teams that already exist and the education authorities, which will now have the new responsibility for assessment from birth.
We talked a great deal about good practice when we discussed this matter in Committee and about how it existed in certain areas but not in others. We said that we wanted to see that good practice spread throughout the country. The proposed changes to the Bill, many of which the Government have accepted, are designed to extend good practice as well as the activities of the multi-disciplinary teams in conjunction with the education authorities.
Again and again in Committee we stressed the need for the early provision of information to prevent later damage being caused, both psychologically and educationally, to children. I believe that the changes proposed in the new clause,s will improve the Bill, and I hope that the Government will accept them.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I understand that new clause 1 flows from exchanges in Committee about the need for the earliest possible identification of special educational needs. This is an important new clause on which I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and the other hon. Members who put their names to it.
Like the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles is an old hand in this field. He said that he was not a parliamentary draftsman. That may be so, but he knows a good clause when he sees one. What is more, he appears to be very happy with the new clause.
My hon. Friend's work goes back beyond the introduction of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, in the making of which, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and other hon. Members on both sides a the House, he played a distinguished role. Then, as now, he was intensely concerned to ensure the closest possible working together of agencies, statutory and voluntary alike, that can help disabled people and especially disabled children.
A great deal of knowledge is locked away in statutory organisations that could be of value, sometimes of considerable value, to other statutory organisations. It is said that knowledge is power, but it can also be an important resource. And we waste resources if knowledge is not properly shared in the statutory sector. New clause 1 accepts that proposition and also sets in relief the importance of co-ordination between statutory authorities.
There are two reasons why co-ordination is important. The first is that if the disabled person is to receive the right help, in the right place and at the right time, the left hand of the Government must know what the right hand is doing. I refer to local government as well as to central Government. That is what practical help for disabled people is really all about.
The second reason why co-ordination is important is that, with resources that are always likely to be limited, we must make sure that they are used to best advantage. Only effective co-ordination within and between the statutory authorities, and between central and local government and all the voluntary agencies outside, can ensure that there is a minimum of duplication and waste. As I said, knowledge is about resources as well as power and, whatever else we may or may not be able to afford, we certainly cannot afford duplication or waste.
New clause 1 says that area and district health authorities should, where appropriate, provide information to local education authorities. I hope that the LEAs will not be selfish with information that may be of help to disabled people if it is made available to social services authorities as well or, indeed, to any other authorities. The more we can share information, the better we shall serve the interests of disabled people.
New clause 2 is also important. I want to give praise today to the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children. The council's work under the leadership of Dr. Mia


Kelmer Pringle has been outstanding. She and her colleagues have provided an excellent service for disabled children and their parents.
The single-door policy is important in this respect. If a mother suddenly learns that her child is severely disabled, she can find the number of agencies with which she has to deal extremely daunting. The more that we can direct the parents of handicapped children to one person who can unlock all the other doors of agencies that can help, the more we shall see progress in this important area.
I commend the two new clauses to the House and I very much hope that they will be approved.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Most of us found our experience in Committee frustrating and disappointing, because almost everyone involved with the Bill realised that the easiest way to make significant improvements in the education of handicapped and disadvantaged children was to allocate extra resources. But every time we pressed for extra resources we were firmly told that there were none.
That is particularly disappointing in respect of these new clauses, because these were two areas where we felt that we would get small but worthwhile concessions. I welcome all the implications that new clause 1 will be accepted. However, it is disappointing that the Government seem to have had a change of heart and have decided that they cannot give their full support to new clause 2. The Minister ought to give an undertaking that he will have a further look at this matter and at least introduce an amendment in the other place, because I am sure that he will be under considerable pressure to do so.
The Minister must consider the importance of giving people the opportunity for self-help by talking to someone who has experienced the problems, so that as a result of the shared experience they may learn to cope. Most of the people involved in the voluntary organisations at local level have experienced the problem either directly in their own families or through friends. Therefore, others can turn to them for sympathy, understanding and advice on how to cope with the difficult problems that they will face in the first few weeks. They can continue to get help and understanding from them over a longer period. It is extremely important that people should be given the information.
4.30 pm
The Minister may say that in some areas there is no appropriate organisation. In a few letters of notification the health authority may have to say "We regret that in your area there is no local organisation, but there is a national body that you can contact". I suspect that if such information were given it would inspire these people to get in touch with others to ensure that in future the same problem did not crop up. In most localities where voluntary organisations have been established it has been because someone has experienced the problems of going it alone and has realised the advantage of sharing the experience with other people with the same problem. If this provision were incorporated in the legislation, even if in a small number of cases it had to be admitted that no useful information could be passed on, in the vast majority of cases it would give people help at a time when they badly need it. I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I support the comments that have been made, from the background of my personal and family experience. I should declare an interest, although in the context of the amendment the interest is not directly relevant, because the circumstances of our two handicapped children are such that they have gone beyond the stage to which the amendments apply. In considering the amendment it may be to the advantage of the House if I refer briefly to my personal experience.
We have two severely mentally handicapped children. One was aged 3 and the other 2 when the information about their condition was made available to us. It had been impossible for the agencies of health, social services and education—although I exonerate social services and education, because they had not an involvement at that stage—to make the information known to us prior to that. I have reason to believe that it might have been possible for the agencies of health to have done so. Therefore, at the age of 3, when the educational process normally starts for a non-handicapped child, we had to contend with the education and other services necessary for handicapped children.
As hon. Members have said, it is a traumatic experience to find that one has a handicapped child. It is an experience from which one learns a lot. I agree entirely with the comments of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) about the benefits that can accrue from shared experience at this stage. When parents find out for the first time that their child is handicapped there is a danger that they do not know how to react. They tend to turn in on themselves and perhaps pretend that they have not heard, or have misheard the information. Therefore, it is important not only that parents are told of the condition of the handicap of the child but that more than information is provided. There should be follow-up facilities to enable parents to discuss their difficulties with others who are experienced in the problems that will face them and to benefit from the experience of others, so that they can more easily face the difficulties that will be involved with their own child or children.
As has been said already, if a group or organisation does not already exist locally that is no good reason why the provision should not be included in the Bill. We found it necessary to set up in our area a parents' group from which, I hope, others have received benefit, as we ourselves benefited from it. That structure exists for the future. If there is a provision in legislation to encourage the establishment of such groups or associations it will be easier to ensure that parents who find out for the first time that they have a handicapped child are able to resort to them.
In the context of new clause 1 there are a few points to which I should like to refer in detail. There is the responsibility of the area health authority not only to pass on to the education authority and to parents the information that there will be a need, or a probable need, for special educational assistance, but to determine whether such a likelihood exists. Obviously the information cannot be passed on either to the parents or to the local authority at the earliest possible stage if the health authority has not done everything possible to determine whether or not there is a likelihood of there being a special need.
In the broadest context of the term, that means that there is a need for screening not only from the age of upwards but prior to birth, so that any handicap or


potential handicap can be identified at a very early age. Such is the condition of our two handicapped children that their educational potential may have been greatest in their earliest years. Such children may hit an educational peak, then a plateau, and then a stage of decline. That decline may have set in by the age of 5. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the problem at the age of 0, 1 or 2 in order to take the maximum benefit from the educational potential at that age, so that it can be consolidated before a decline sets in. Unless that is done the opportunities will have been lost.
There is a need for information to be transferred. The only real help that we had when we had to face the special educational needs of our children was from a third party, who had no greater status than that he happended to be a friend of the family and my political agent. This was in the first few weeks after the 1974 election, when I became a Member of Parliament. My friend had the good sense to press us strongly to get in contact with the education authority about special educational needs. Even when one knows that one's child is handicapped and one has been told by doctors that he is likely to need special education at a later stage, one is still likely to say "Let us try him in an ordinary school in the hope that the forecast will not materialise and he will develop like other children." Parents of handicapped children need guidance and help from the experience of others at that critical stage to make the right decision. The decision may go against the grain at that time, but with hindsight parents will identify it as having been the right one.
There are two important points. First, there is the responsibility of health authorities to identify positively those who need help. I take it that the words in the new clause 1,
in the course of exercising any of its functions
cover that. If it is within the scope of the Minister's portfolio, I should like him to confirm that. Secondly, there is the need for a positive initiative, in the most relaxed and sensitive way, to give parents the information under paragraph (a) of the new clause. It is important not only that the information is given but that there is then the triggering off of teamwork to bring together the health authority, doctors, nurses, the specialist, the paediatrician, the social workers and the educational input, and that there is a named person to whom the parents can turn.

Mr. Carter-Jones: May I bring up the term "multi-disciplinary team" which we threw around in Committee? Is the hon. Gentleman asking the Minister to include in the guidelines the essential need for a multi-disciplinary team to assess the needs of the under-five child and say what action is to be taken?

Mr. Wigley: I am. I am aware of the comments made on this point in the Warnock committee's report. I do not see how the intentions of the clause, which I understand the Government are likely to accept, can work properly without the existence of a multi-disciplinary team. It is necessary for the proper functioning of the clause and for all the responsibilities under the Bill and other legislation. There is a crying need for it, and for the parents involved to be able to relate to a person who puts them in touch with a team that is aware of the various aspects of the difficulties faced by the child. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It underlines the point that I am coming to—the need for the parents to be able to relate to people with expertise in the various facets of the problem.
There is need for a positive initiative by the local authority. We have identified the handicap, we have informed the parents and discussed it, we have a support mechanism for those parents and, we have informed the local authority of the problem. There then needs to be a positive lead from the local authority. It is so easy for the parents to sit back and avoid facing the reality of the problem. Therefore, the local education authority must take a more positive line in making suggestions, giving the parents supportive help, and making facilities available in addition to those made available for ordinary children where such "hang-ups" do not exist.
Those three aspects are important. If the benefits that will come from the thinking behind the clause are to be fully realised, the suggestions that I have made need to be accepted.

Mr. Frank Field: I shall come to the powerful theme of the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), but I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on the way in which he introduced this important clause. I am sure that he will forgive me if I concentrate most of my attention on the comments of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). To sum up his contribution—several hon. Members have touched on the theme of it—if we are to prevent handicap from becoming more serious we have to act quickly, and that is what the clause is about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles reminded us of the importance of the period before birth. I want to remind the House of the importance of the period of birth and the days after birth. As a result of the work done by Geoffrey Chamberlain, we know that a child who does not breathe within the first three minutes of birth will begin to suffer irreparable damage to the central nervous system. At that point it is necessary to take action to limit, if not to overcome, the handicap. The spirit of the clause takes on that information. Let us learn as soon as possible and then try to act to minimise the effect of the handicap.
4.45 pm
There are two parts to the clause. First, there is the duty to inform parents and, secondly, there is a duty on the area or district health authority to inform the local education authority. We are now in the later stages of our discussions on a major Bill dealing with the education of handicapped children and young people. Will the Under-Secretary tell us what a local authority will be able to do under the Bill that it could not do before for parents who have a handicapped child of whom the authority will be informed by the area and district health authority.
New clause 2 is designed to help parents and, by helping parents, to help handicapped children. It is about telling those parents of the other organisations and voluntary bodies that will be able to help them. In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on 26 May the Under—Secretary gave two reasons why the clause would not work: first, because there is no uniform network of support throughout the country, and, secondly, because voluntary bodies are not the right bodies to give parents the news about the handicap of their child. I hope that the Secretary of State is clear, from all the contributions that have been made, that no one wants voluntary bodies to give that information to parents.
We are saying that parents who have been through the trauma of realising that their child is handicapped have a


knowledge that no one else has, and that that knowledge should be shared with parents who find themselves in the same position. To argue that that cannot be done over the whole of the country is profoundly anti-Tory. The Minister is posing the Utopian solution—when we have a perfect way forward, we will adopt it. That is the argument that we normally expect to hear from the Opposition, not from the Government. The argument from the Conservative side is usually "Let us build on what we have and improve as we go along". That is good, old-fashioned, Tory sense.
It is surprising that the Under-Secretary of State should say that in his letter. I am sure that he had a copy of the letter that MENCAP distributed to Members of the Committee and to other hon. Members who were interested in this subject. The association said that to start by giving this special responsibility to voluntary bodies might improve the service that they can give. The association has also said that it has no wish to have the responsibility of telling parents the first news about the handicap of their child.
I understand that the Government smile on new clause 1, but have doubts about new clause 2. We want the Under-Secretary of State to think carefully about the arguments that have been put in the debate. That is what I intended to say before I rose to my feet. We have now had the benefit of hearing the hon. Member for Caernarvon, who made a powerful contribution of a kind that few of us could have made. I hope that on the basis of that contribution alone the Minister will say that the Government will examine this idea and perhaps report more favourably in another place. If he cannot give us that undertaking, we shall press new clause 2 to a Division.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): We have had a good debate. There was also a good debate in Committee on the various factors in the Bill. All members of that Committee were concerned about what was happening to children below the age of 50. There was also much concern about the 16 to 19-year-olds, but were particularly concerned about the children in the former group.
Everyone who has spoken today has done so with genuine concern. I quote as an example my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) gave me a little lesson on Toryism. I am always prepared to learn. The idea was that we do not wait for a utopian society, but progress step by step. I commend to the House the Government's attitude, which is completely within that philosophy. We must not go too far at the beginning. We must not put at risk the advances that we are making. We must create a climate of opinion that will take us on further. When I listened to the hon. Member for Birkenhead I realised how much of what he said was the Government's philosophy in the clauses that we are discussing.
Because of the debate in Committee we said that we would consider the matter and see what we could do for children under the age of 5. Reference has been made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to that debate and to what I said.
I said:

New clause 2 is nearer to what we can accept than new clause 1 … The Government have no objection to the principle or to the new clause imposing on health authorities a requirement to a inform both the parent and the local education authority at the earliest possible time and, one trusts, with the degree of compassion that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely this morning, of the special needs of that child."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 2 April 1981; c. 478]
New clause 1 says that the parent and the local education authority must be informed. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that sequence of events. It is basically the duty of the health authority to break the news first. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), who spoke so feelingly and sensibly on the matter, will agree with me. This is a considerable advance on what existed before, when there was a large gap. We have tried to do what we can to cover that gap.
The local health authority must notify the parents if there is a handicap. The hon. Member for Caernarvon asked me for an assurance that that was part of the duties of the local health authority. That is so and I shall reply to that point. It is not a duty for that authority to screen all children. However, the Bill will make it a duty, if the child crosses its path, as it were, or if the authority examines the child. Once that happens the authority will have a responsibility to see the parents and to inform them and the local education authority. The hon. Member for Birkenhead asked what difference that made. Having received that information, it is the responsibility of the local education authority to do something about it.
That responsibility did not exist before. We shall see how far that responsibility goes. There is now a difference of onus of responsibility. The authority is informed, because the risk is that in the bureaucracies that build up in our society, in large bodies, one section has information and another has not. This attempt was within the philosophy towards the Bill and was agreed by both sides of the Committee, as I am sure it will be agreed here.
There are two factors. The parent is particularly important. We have enshrined far more powers than previously in the Bill. Secondly, we have said that the local education authority can now do something about the matter.
If the House accepts new clause 1, which I commend, our Department will consult the Secretary of State for Social Services on the content of post-legislative guidance to ensure that health authorities appreciate the provisions of that clause—which applies not only to children between the ages of 2 and 5 but to small babies—and the ramifications of what is being done. That matter was raised by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who is absent today on other duties, spoke to me about the matter. He was involved, as well as the hon. Members for Eccles and Exeter. We helped with the drafting so that an advance could be made.
The Government cannot accept new clause 2 as it stands. There are two factors in new clause 2. The first is that it is proposed that it should be the duty of the National Health Service to acquaint the parents of a handicap at birth of or on identification of the handicap. No one objects to the identification of the handicap. There may be a difference of opinion about the timing. The second factor


is that the NHS shall acquaint the parents of the existence and whereabouts of a support organisation after six weeks, in writing.
Therefore, the first factor is the question of the parent being informed almost at the point of birth. The second factor was referred to by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). That factor is informing the parents about the support organisations that are available.

Mr. Beith: The clause deals only with informing the parents of the existence of appropriate support organisations. It names two times when that can be done. We can argue about whether the times are precisely right, but that is all that the clause is about.

Dr. Boyson: The clause refers to informing the parents about those organisations after six weeks, in writing. One cannot inform the parents of that unless they have been informed about the handicap in the first place. Therefore, the first point is subsumed. The clause specifies the time of identification. It does not leave it to the sensibility of the health authority to do that as soon as possible, which I am sure would be the view of most hon. Members.
Despite our respect for the support organisations and the good work that they do, we do not feel that the local education authority or the health authority should be tied down to provide that information. We feel that in cases where that is advisable, that will be done. When drafting a Bill, there is always a risk of over-legislating. Time and again the local education authorities have raised the matter of the amount of legislation in the Bill. There is nothing to stop a local education authority or the health authority informing parents about support organisations at the moment. That practice could be developed. We do not feel that it is necessary to put it in legislation. The clause says that the Nation al Health Service must acquaint the parents of the handicap and of the whereabouts of the support organisation at a certain time. That is what we disagree about.
With regard to timing, if the mother is suffering from post-natal depression I do not believe that the enforced time of information bound to apply under new clause 2 would be ideal for the parents to be acquainted of the handicap. I shall return to the question of timing, because timing is specified in new clause 2. The hon. Member for Birkenhead suggests that I should take it out, but at least I am talking about information being given at a certain time, which is in the clause.
There should be flexibility in building on a better practice. What we have done in accepting new clause 2, which I trust the House will accept—[HON. MEMBERS: "New clause 1."] I meant to say new clause 1. I was brought up on the tables and I immediately move on from 1 to 2. Before the House becomes too alarmed or too enthusiastic about that, I shall rephrase it. I hope that the House will accept new clause 1.

Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman has just informed me of what he is doing. At 8 am, when we have gone right through the night, he usually sounds as if he is on his 163 times table.
I wish to ask the hon. Member about some matters concerning new clause 2. Does his rooted objection arise solely because of timing? Would he be prepared to consider another form of amendment that removed the problem of trying to specify the time too closely?
My second point arises specifically from what he said. While mothers suffer post-natal depression, even in the event of producing children who have no obvious handicap of any description or any special educational needs, physiologically and psychologically, fathers do not. Fathers are extremely important in the process of post-natal adjustment to the difficulties that may arise for new parents as a consequence of having a child with obvious needs.
Thirdly, had we been able to rely on local education authorities, area health authorities or any statutory body, to ensure that parents knew of the support organisations, hon. Members would not have gone to the trouble to table an amendment specifically requiring that the duty be laid. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware, first, of the importance of support organisations and, secondly, of the need, without over-legislating, for a system that will ensure that the necessary information reaches parents likely to be affected?

5 pm

Mr. Carter-Jones: I asked whether the hon. Gentleman could show in the guidelines the requirement that the information should also refer to neonates. He agreed, and at the same time nodded. We should have that gesture on the record and in the guidelines. Will he give a firm undertaking that in the other place a subsection (c) will be added to new clause 1 to the effect that the authority shall also be responsible for informing parents of the whereabouts of voluntary organisations? It would overcome the difficulty. The guidelines would cover neonates and deal with the six-week period, and new clause 1(c) would cover the other point. I trust the hon. Gentleman. The House would accept an undertaking from him.

Dr. Boyson: I gave way to the hon. Member for Bedwelty (Mr. Kinnock) and then to the hon. Member for Eccles, as I know that everyone has the best interest of children and parents at heart. We shall consider the suggestion of the hon. Member for Eccles before the Bill goes to the other place to see whether it should be a duty on health authorities to inform parents of local support organisations, but I cannot say more than that.

Mr. Carter-Jones: The other assurance that I should like is that the guidelines will contain a reference to neonates, which will meet the six-week argument. A neonate could be a newly born child, without definition of time.

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman is naughty. He pushes me further and further. He is a greater expert on neonates than I. I had to draw on my classical education to analyse what the word meant. I had never before used it, so I had to practice how to pronounce it. I can go no further than my assurance that we shall consider his suggestion about support organisations. Later guidance involves other Departments. We consulted the Department of Health and Social Security before the clause was drafted, so we had its full co-operation.

Mr. Field: Will the hon. Gentleman state clearly what he is offering? He has said that he will look again at new clause 2 before it goes to the other place, so what has been said this afternoon to lead him to believe that it is worth


while to reconsider? We do not want to miss the chance to vote on the new clause and then find that nothing happens.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is moving to a position that we might all find acceptable. He left the Committee and the voluntary organisations with the clear impression that he welcomed the principle of informing parents, and he has addressed himself today to legitimate arguments about timing. The new clause is tabled in the same form as in Committee, because so far the hon. Gentleman has not been able to use the Department's drafting skills to incorporate the principle, which he is prepared to accept, in new clause 1. There is an opportunity in another place to include the principle in the ramifications of the Bill in a clear form. That is what we all seek, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman will argue against it.

Dr. Boyson: The last thing that I want to do is to mislead the House. Apart from my sense of honour, we shall all meet again tomorrow.
I give an assurance that before the Bill goes to the other place we shall see whether we can include in new clause
1 a provision that local health authorities have the responsibility to inform parents or local support organisations when they inform them of the child's handicap. I do not believe that we shall disagree about timing, and the hon. Member for Eccles made a suggestion about that.
I was asked why I had given the undertaking. It is a non-party Bill, and we are not trying to bulldoze it through the House. We have tried to get the Bill right, within financial and other restraints. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been helpful this afternoon, and from their experience hon. Members believe that the matter may be of greater importance than we originally thought. Accordingly, it would be remiss if we failed to respond.
I commend new clause 1 to the House, and, although I cannot commend new clause 2, I have given an undertaking to look at the matter before the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Carter-Jones: This has been an interesting and rewarding debate. Sometimes there is a bonanza and one gets a large piece of salami. At others, it has to come slice by slice. We have won a slice today. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) tells me that our debate will be read and noted in the other place. I accept the Minister's word. He is an honourable man.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

'1.—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a National Advisory Committee on Special Educational Needs to act as a consultative and advisory body and to report annually to the Secretary of State according to the following terms of reference:

(a) to consult with the Departments of Education and Science, Health and Social Security, Employment and other relevant agencies to ensure the proper co-ordination of special educational provision at national and local level;
(b) to advise and consult with local education authorities on the provision for meeting special educational needs within their area with particular regard to the best deployment of existing services;

(c) to issue guidelines on the provision for special educational need and disseminate examples of good practice;
(d) to monitor the working of this Act;
(e) to instigate and promote research into the provision of special educational needs and matters relating thereto.

(2) The Secretary of State shall lay the report of the National Advisory Committee before both Houses of Parliament.

(3) The Secretary of State shall appoint the members of the Committee aforesaid to serve for such periods as he thinks fit, bearing in mind the desirability of including as members thereof handicapped persons and parents of handicapped children.'.—[Mr. Hannam.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hannam: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We discussed the principle of the new clause towards the end of our proceedings in Committee. It aims to put important icing on the cake of special education. It would establish a national advisory committee, which everyone wants and which in principle the Government have accepted can be provided, although they do not want to provide it in this legislation.
All the arguments for such a national advisory committee on special education were strongly expressed by witnesses at our three Special Standing Committee sittings. I thought that the use of the Select Committee procedure for those three sittings was extremely valuable and should be adopted on other occasions. Evidence from all the witnesses strongly supported the establishment of a national advisory committee, as did members of the Committee and all the organisations which wrote to us. This was especially due to the lack of resources which we all accepted as necessitating a gradualist approach by local authorities at they develop the system that we all wish to see.
The establishment of such a committee was also a recommendation of the Warnock report. Indeed, Mary Warnock herself wrote to me from Oxford reiterating her strong support for such a committee. Her letter, dated 30 April, states:
I want to let you know that the Committee of Inquiry into the education of the Handicapped, at its weekend discussions last week came unanimously to the conclusion that there really must be a National Advisory Committee established as a statutory body, to advise Ministers, monitor educational practice, bring together people from different professions and initiate research—as we recommended in our report.
No one would deny that the establishment of such a committee to consult local authorities on the implementation of the legislation is essential to successful integration. The Government have faced the problems of resources for the implementation of the legislation and have been unable to set aside any extra resources. They have said clearly and correctly, however, that much progress can be made towards better use of existing resources and the extension of good practice, as indeed we argued throughout the Committee stage. That may be true, but it is difficult to see how this can be achieved, given the great variation between local authorities, without some overall co-ordinating and advisory body.
The Government have also said that they do not consider that an advisory committee is necessary at this stage. I believe that many of the problems that require the establishment of such a body at later stage could be avoided if it were established now to consult and advise local education authorities. In Committee the Government gave a commitment to call a conference of professional


and voluntary organisations concerned with special education to discuss the possible establishment of an advisory committee.
Since then, those voluntary organisations, RADAR and those of us who discussed the matter with them have concluded that the position is unsatisfactory. The views of the voluntary and professional organisations are clear. They strongly support the establishment of a national advisory committee. The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the National Council of Women and all the various organisations for the disabled and handicapped, as well as Mary Warnock and her committee, still strongly express their continued support for the establishment of such a committee.
5.15 pm
Secondly, to be effective, such a committee must have clearly defined statutory duties such as consulting local education authorities on the provision for meeting special educational needs, issuing guidelines on such provision, as well as monitoring the working of the Act and reporting to the Secretary of State.
I shall not go into detail, as I did in Committee, on all the other reasons why we need a committee to establish good practice throughout the country, with the use of multi-disciplinary committees and teams, for the introduction, often in difficult circumstances, of special education for the 18 per cent. who will be required to receive education other than at special schools.
This is a complicated and technical area which will require extra advice to willing recipients among the education authorities. We are not trying to pour water through a stone. Education authorities will be willing to help in the development of the system.
I understand and support the Government's policy of reluctance to create new quangos for the sake of it, but I do not think that that would be the case in this instance. A children's committee already exists, embracing many disciplines and duties that we would ask the new national advisory committee to undertake. The chairman of the children's committee is Dr. Brimblecombe, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and I know well as a leading paediatrician in Devon. He has pioneered much of the work in establishing new systems of communication for the education of severely handicapped children.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: He is internationally known.

Mr. Hannam: As my hon. Friend says, he is internationally known. Dr. Brimblecombe met the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and myself at the House to discuss whether, if the Government accepted the principle of a national advisory committee but remained reluctant to set up a new body, the children's committee, through a sub-committee, could embrace the work that would be required. We discussed the matter in some detail and he was most willing to undertake such a responsibility if the Government so required.
The Government's only real defence against the new clause seems to be that it would establish a new quango. If they accepted the principle, however, it would be possible to use an existing, well-established body, the children's committee, and to work with the DHSS to allow it to extend its activities to cover the duties required of a national advisory committee.
I believe that most of us in the House and all the organisations involved do not accept that the introduction of the system of special education can be successfully carried out without such an advisory body. We should like the Government to agree to set up a special advisory committee. If they cannot do that, however, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the alternative to which I have referred of using an existing organisation, such as the children's committee, for the purpose.
I hope that we shall hear some thoughts from the Government about what is considered by all those concerned, from Mary Warnock and her committee through all the national organisations and all members of the Standing Committee, as one of the most important questions still remaining. I hope that the Government will consider this carefully. If they can accept the new clause today we shall, of course, be satisfied. If not, I hope that they will consider the alternative suggestion of using the children's committee.

Mr. Field: I rise once again to support the arguments of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). I wish to put two questions to the Secretary of State. If the Government maintain that it is unnecessary to establish a national advisory committee, will the right hon. Gentleman consider carefully the functions listed in new clause 8 which we wish the national advisory committee to have and tell us how and by whom they will be carried out? I think that he will find it difficult to argue that those functions are not important to the operation of the Bill, which, we hope, will shortly become an Act.
If my memory is correct, whoever drafted the Bill cribbed generously from the Warnock report. The Secrertary of State should bear in mind the comments made by the chairman and members of the Warnock committee since publication, as well as our debates in Committee, about the key importance of establishing a national advisory committee. If no such body is established, who will take responsibility for co-ordinating policy between Government Departments?
When the Under-Secretary of State replied to the debate on new clauses 1 and 2, I found very significant the stress that he placed on the co-ordination that he had had to undertake between Departments before he could reply. Therefore, the function of co-ordinating at a national level is clearly important. Who is to be responsible from now on for that co-ordination.
Secondly, if there is no new national advisory committee, who will be the link with local authorities after there has been co-ordination between Government Departments?
Thirdly, if there is no national advisory committee, who will have the responsibility for spreading good practice? I stress that, because in the course of the trips that I have started to make around the schools one of the things that has struck me is the importance of understanding the genesis of success in a school and how we can spread it.
We read a great deal in our newspapers about schools that are not performing very well. Indeed, we often hear something about them at Question Time. We do not seem to spend enough time thinking about how to spread success. How do we learn from the little school across the road, St. Matthew's, in Westminster? On walking through


the door it is obvious that it is a humming successful school. How can other schools face the problems that that school used to face and overcome them?
There is no mechanism for spreading success. There are many organs for spreading gloom and doom, but not for spreading the good news. [Interruption.] It would appear that I am perhaps convincing the Secretary of State and that I need not continue, but for the sake of completeness I should like to persevere with him. There might also be other doubters in the House. If there is no national advisory committee, who will spread the success that many of us have seen in schools in our constituencies and elsewhere? This is an immensely important function and I do not know of any body that undertakes it at the present time.
It is crucial, with a Bill that has no money resolution attached to it, that we should try to live by our wits. That should be the short title of the Bill. New clause 8 will help us to live by our wits. Who, otherwise, will carry out the function that I have described?
Fourthly, if there is no new body to carry out the function of monitoring the success or otherwise of this legislation, who will be responsible for monitoring and carrying back to the House the effects of that monitoring, so that we can try to improve what the Government are proposing in the education that we offer to some of our children?
The hon. Member for Exeter suggested that we should try to understand the difficulties of a Government with a clear manifesto commitment about quangos. There is a lesson here for all of us, because manifesto commitments can lead to difficulties in areas unrelated to the usual thrust of Government policy. Why not build on what we have? There is a children's committee, chaired by a distinguished doctor. Rather than set up a new body, perhaps a more satisfactory solution would be to build on the existing order.
I make that plea to the Secretary of State, not because I am trying to wear Tory clothes at this stage of the debate—indeed, I shall lose this job very quickly if I do so, having already used similar arguments in discussing two other amendments—but because in discussing the first two new clauses we were very much concerned with relaying to parents the first news about the handicap of their child. Such parents face pressures that other parents do not face. In that sense, one could say that the parents of handicapped children act in relation to all parents almost in the way that a barium meal acts in relation to an X-ray, because the group of which we take least notice in our society is the family, whether it be rich or poor.
We desperately need a body to speak with authority on behalf of families. There is a powerful case for saying that one of the institutions that we wish to build up—an institution that is separate from the Government and can speak with authority, and does not shut up because the Government, of whatever party, would like it to shut up—is the children's committee, chaired and staffed by distinguished people. I hope that when the Secretary of State replies to the debate we shall find that he has been persuaded by the arguments of the hon. Member for Exeter, and perhaps by some of my arguments. If he rejects all of them, I hope that he will address himself carefully to the four or so questions that I have posed.
If there is no appropriate body, who is to carry out the key functions that were listed by Mrs. Warnock in her report and which she thought were crucial to the effectiveness of the report or its becoming a legislative fact? If the Minister is negative in his response, and if the hon. Member for Exeter wishes to register the importance of the new clause, some of us on the Opposition Benches will join him in the Lobby.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) because I have been considerably depressed, in such contacts as I have had during the passage of the Bill, by the narrowness of the experience within the Department of Education and Science of some aspects covered by the Bill.
It has been clear to me that defensive fortifications have been erected to conceal a lack of practical knowledge. This is not something that we can live with bearing in mind that we are legislating in this area probably for the last time for some years. We need now to make the Bill as comprehensive as we can.
Some of the provisions of the Bill will come into law by ministerial regulation, not one word of which can be amended by the House—a fact that is sometimes overlooked. It is, therefore, all the more necessary that there should be a continuing, broadly based and broadly experienced monitoring body which extends far outside the skills existing in the Department of Education and Science, whose shortcomings have become obvious to hon. Members on each side of the House during the passage of the Bill.
My hon. Friend alluded to Dr. Brimblecombe, who is not merely of national status but who for many years has spent a significant time each year in the Sudan, advising the Government of the Sudan on their priorities in the organisation of paediatric health and therapy. I could not think of anyone better fitted to lead such a committee.
The reason why I have intervened is that, although later today we shall come to a group of amendments that draw particular attention to the quite different circumstances attached to psychiatric hospitals in particular, the subject is relevant at this stage. The need for those amendments has arisen from the inability of the Department of Education and Science to recognise the greatly differing circumstances encompassed by the different types of educational provision which need to be made subject to the Bill and, indeed, which existed before the Bill came before the House.
However carefully the Bill is drafted, and however carefully Ministers consider it in the light of the debates both in this House and in the other place, it will not achieve the aims of Ministers or of this House without broadly based monitoring. After all, the Bill goes to some pains in terms of multi-disciplinary teams to carry out some of its provisions. The one thing lacking is multi-disciplinary monitoring of the Bill's whole structure.
5.30 pm
The logic that applies to the multi-disciplinary team must apply to monitoring. I repeat that that is necessary, because the House will be largely impotent to perform that function. Much of the crucial regulation will be done by ministerial order, which cannot be amended by the House. In the discussion stage before any changes are made in the regulations, or—one would hope—before the regulations are drafted, there should be a body that has current and


diverse experience. I stress that that body should not be an internal part of the Department of Education and Science, because it is becoming apparent that that Department has severe shortcomings.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): We shall deal later with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I assure him that any differences of opinion that may be held at the end of that debate will not arise as a result of any shortcomings in the Department or from any disagreement about the Bill's purpose. If there is a disagreement between my hon. Friend and myself, it may centre on the legal effect of the words in the Bill and the implications of that aspect of the Bill for one type of special school. However, I hope to deal with that later. In addition, I hope to reach an amicable agreement with my hon. Friend on the issues that are of concern to both of us.
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my next remarks will not be out of order. I have read the report of the Committee proceedings. As this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak since the Second Reading, I should like to say that I am grateful to all those who served on that Committee for the constructive way in which the debates were conducted. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, we are not involved in party polemics. We are trying, within the constraints that the Government have set on the use of resources, to put on the statute book a Bill that will help with the genuine and human problems that disabled children face.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) for all that he has done. Equally, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who has tabled an amendment that derives from others that he moved in Committee, for the work that he has done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said, in Committee we discussed whether it was right to have a national advisory committee and whether the new clause would achieve that end. I shall take those two aspects separately. The short answer to the new clause is that I do not need the power proposed in it to set up such a committee. I am advised that under section 1 of the Education Act 1944 I have the power to set up, if I should think it appropriate, such a body. Therefore, there is no need to incorporate such a power in the Bill or to attempt to set out in statutory form that committee's detailed terms of reference. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that, whatever dicision may be taken about the committee, the new clause is not necessary.
I should mislead the House and answer only part of the debate if I did not answer the second question. Is it necessary to have a national advisory committee at this stage? I have not closed my mind to the idea of some form of national advisory committee at some stage. Under the 1944 Act I have the power to appoint one. Equally, I have not been persuaded by what I have read of the Special Standing Committee's proceedings or by what I have heard today that there is a need to set up such a committee. I stand by what was said in the White Paper, which was printed last August. We said that many bodies gave the Government advice on this matter—they are set out in paragraph 64—and that we were not convinced of the need to set up an additional advisory committee.
Mrs. Warnock wrote not only to my hon. Friend, but to me. She repeated that such a committee was desirable.

As she was responsible for the report and has great knowledge of the subject, one must consider her arguments. Given that debate and her letter, I reconsidered the matter, but I still do not believe that it is necessary, at this stage, to set up a national advisory committee. As my hon. Friend accepted, one does not wish to set up additional boards of a quasi Government nature unless they are essential. Therefore, we should use our existing machinery.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked how we would deal with the various points raised by this important new clause if we did not set up such a body. He asked who would co-ordinate policy between Government Departments. An advisory committee can never carry out the role of co-ordinating policy between Government Departments. Only Government Departments and the organisations that they create can co-ordinate policy. If hon. Members think about that, they will agree that that must be right. As the Department of Education and Science is clearly the lead Department, that role must fall to it. That applies equally to the second question.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is that not an incestuous sort of arrangement, that co-ordination must be between Government Departments? Why do the Government not bring in some fresh blood from outside to look at the way in which the system works? Would that not bring a breath of fresh air to the considerations?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not think that the hon. Member is applying his mind to the same question that I thought I was being asked, which is who is responsible for co-ordinating the work of Government Departments. I do not see that one can have an outside advisory body that is responsible for that co-ordination. That must be done by arrangements between Government bodies. No one disputes that at some stage one can have an individual to review relationships between Government bodies as a whole, but the responsibility for the successful co-ordination of Government policy must, in the end, be that of the lead Department. The fact that one has an advisory committee does not remove the responsibility from that lead Department.

Mr. Carter-Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentleman answered my question when he added an adjective. He referred to "successful" co-ordination. He had previously spoken about "co-ordination". I suggested that there was no real co-ordination between Departments and that they might be shaken if outside people made observations about their unsuccessful co-ordination.

Mr. Carlisle: I shall speak about outside people in a moment. Part of my argument is that a good many outside bodies are already involved.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead asked who was responsible for links with local authorities. One must remember that one of the important aspects of the Bill is that it lays clear duties on local authorities in their dealings with children with special educational needs to identify them, in certain cases to make statements about them and to make adequate provision for them.
Under the 1944 Act the Department of Education and Science has a responsibility to ensure that local authorities carry out their statutory duties. Under that Act the Department and the Secretary of State for Education and Science have a responsiblity to ensure that local authorities


are carrying out their statutory responsibility and can be asked to intervene if they are failing to carry out that statutory responsibility. My answer to the second question is that one cannot ensure that a local authority carries out its statutory responsibility by the appointment of an advisory committee, which itself does not have statutory powers. This can be done only by the Department of Education and Science using its powers under the 1944 Act.
The third question is fair. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has raised it on previous occasions. It involves the need to disseminate good practice. In passing, I might add how much I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead, that we too often fail to pay tribute to the amount of good work carried out in many parts of our institutions.
5.45 pm
When I go round special schools—I am sure that the hon. Member and many other hon. Members feel the same way—I come away humbled, impressed and grateful, on behalf of others, for the work and dedication of the staff who work there. There is a magnificent happiness inside many of those institutions. Of course there is the task of spreading good practice, but the purpose of having an inspectorate working through and with the Department is that it can cover the country and visit and examine individual schools. Only part of its task is spreading good practice.
Paragraph 64 of the White Paper says:
The Secretary of State can already draw on a wide range of advice and expertise … from HM Inspectorate, DHSS, the Schools Council, the Council for Educational Technology, the National Foundation for Educational Research and the Welsh Joint Educational Committee, as well as the teachers' and local authority associations, professional groups, voluntary bodies, and parents through the many bodies representing specific conditions of handicap".
Realistically, the opportunity to be advised, to receive advice and to carry out the proposals set out in the new clause is already met by the existing institutions and bodies.
The final question asked by the hon. Member for Birkenhead was: who would monitor? The only person who can monitor the success or otherwise and the implementation of an Act of Parliament is the Department responsible for carrying that Act through. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton asked how Parliament controlled that monitoring. I do not believe that it can be controlled by asking me to set up a national advisory committee with its membership appointed by the Department. Parliament controls monitoring because it has the power to question myself and my colleague Ministers at the Dispatch Box, to put down questions and to have Adjournment debates on the procedure and success of the Bill.
I accept the views that Mrs. Warnock has repeated in a letter to me. Despite the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, and faced with the advice that already exists within the Warnock report and the responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the Bill which inevitably falls on the Department and the battery of various individual advising bodies that I already have, I have tried to explain why it would not be correct to set up a new body at this time.

Mr. Field: I forgot that I was addressing my argument to a lawyer. I should have been more precise with my language. The Minister was correct to reprimand me for thinking of the body as one that would initiate the functions. I was making a plea—I thought the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) was making the same plea—that we should have a watchdog body that would see that this was being done in Whitehall
Does the Secretary of State realise where his argument has taken him? He is now telling the House and the country that Whitehall knows best, trust Whitehall. In the 1940s my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) coined a phrase that has hung round this party for a long time, with derivations on it about Daddy knowing best and Whitehall knowing best. The plea made by the hon. Member for Exeter, which I supported, was for a plural society. However good or bad Departments are at carrying out those functions, it is crucial that one body should have the responsibility across the range of Departments and between the Government and local authorities, and on the issue of good practice it should, above all, have no other responsibilities than to see that those functions are being carried out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct to reprimand me for the language I used, but it was a plea for a watchdog body and not a body to take over the functions of Whitehall or local authorities.

Mr. Carlisle: I did not intend to reprimand the hon. Gentleman. I was simply putting the other side of the argument. I accept that the body would be a watchdog, and I was not suggesting that Whitehall knew best. I was trying to say that it inevitably had the statutory responsibility for certain aspects of what we proposed and that I believed that there were many outside people already in the field who had views on the matter and were in a portion to collect the information on good practice that the hon. Gentleman needs.
I welcome the role of voluntary bodies. I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter say that he doubted whether the conference of voluntary bodies would be of any value. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in Committtee, namely, that we would genuinely welcome a conference of the voluntary bodies concerned—and fairly soon after the Bill reaches the statute book—to discuss problems that might arise over implementation of the Act and co-ordination between the voluntary bodies on advice that they might wish to give us.
I am told that there are already the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children and the National Council for Special Education. I believe that we could together organise a system by which, without our setting up a new advisory council, the views of the voluntary bodies could be co-ordinated among themselves in a way that would assist the Government in the implementation of the Bill.
I end where I started. I have not closed my mind, saying that there could never be a national advisory body. At times one's judgment is shown to be wrong, but for the moment I do not believe that it is necessary to have a national body. I believe that there is sufficient to be done and sufficient means of doing it, without such a body. If I or a successor of mine ever had a change of mind, the 1944 Act would permit the creation of such a body.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Secretary of State's reply was very disappointing. I had hoped that he would


at least accept the spirit of the clause, but his party's doctrinaire attitude towards quangos, rather than the needs of special education, seems to have dominated the Department's thinking.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no need to set up a national advisory committee. In a sense, if he does not set one up, he is abolishing an existing national advisory body. The Government had the benefit of almost all the functions of a national advisory committee from the Warnock committee, which acted as a catalyst in the way in which a national advisory committee should work, in carrying out its inquiry, in the way in which it sought and set out the evidence, the way in which it produced its report, and the way in which the report was then discussed. Eventually, we had the Government's response, even if it was disappointing.
I am not sure how it did so, but in a way the Warnock committee went on functioning after producing its report. By the time the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament, it will be difficult for the committee to go on functioning. However, I am not suggesting that we should allow the Warnock committee to merge into or become, even if with totally different personnel, a national advisory committee.
The Government are abolishing something of which they have had the advantage for the past five or six years. I plead with the Minister to have second thoughts and establish for the benefit of all those concerned with special education a national advisory body with status and stature, a committee that can continue to perform the role that the Warnock committee has performed so successfully in the interim.

Mr. Hannam: The contribution of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) was important, because he highlighted the fact that there has been a great input of information to this area of special education that will now inevitably decline and disappear unless something is put in its place.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said that the Bill was not the vehicle for legislating for an advisory committee, as the powers already existed in the 1944 Act. On Second Reading and in the White Paper the Government made it clear that they were not in principle opposed to such a committee, but that they did not believe that it was necessary now. Like other hon. Members, I have argued that it will be necessary.
Under other legislation, such as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, local authorities have not necessarily continued along the path that the Government wished. In fact, Ministers are at present taking legislative and oher action to try to achieve certain objectives that local authorities, with their autonomous position, do not wish to achieve. It is important that the discussion continues.
Therefore, I welcome the repeated assurance of my right hon. and learned Friend that he would like at an early stage to call a conference of the voluntary organisations. I think that he will receive a clear message from them. I also believe that the matter will continue to be debated as the Bill proceeds through the other place.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that in this area of development the expertise from outside would be more important than that inside the Department. We already have a number of

important advisory committees, such as that dealing with the employment of disabled people. The children's committees are another example. They are advising the Minister and helping to monitor developments. There is also the Social Security Advisory Committee. All of these committees play a valuable role.
I believe that the discussion will continue for some time. However, as the Bill is not the vehicle for legislation of this nature, as the powers exist, and it is therefore a matter of having to persuade the Government, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

MEANING OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PROVISION

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 2, page 1, leave out lines 13 to 17.
I am naturally very grateful to Mr. Speaker for having now selected the amendment for debate. In moving what is a profoundly important amendment I speak on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and, I believe, of many other hon. Members, in expressing warm appreciation of Mr. Speaker's prompt and helpful response to our request that the amendment should be considered.
Like those of the Secretary of State, my interventions today are my first on the Bill since Second Reading. I join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his tribute to members of the Standing Committee, whose work, as we have already seen today, has had some effect on the Government's thinking about the Bill. They have won no money, but it was always clear that they were unlikely to do so. Nevertheless, they have won some respect.
The Bill provides that a child will be deemed to have a
learning difficulty
if
he suffers from a disability which either prevents or hinders him from making use of educational facilities".
What are "educational facilities" and what is meant by
making use of educational facilities"?
The Bill appears to allow a disabled child to be deemed to have a "learning difficulty" if a school is inaccessible, or if certain of its facilities, such as toilets, are inaccessible,or if a child needs help in going to the toilet. That is to confuse learning difficulties with the problems of access to buildings.
Clause 1 will allow a local education authority to send a child to a special school, away from his friends and non-disabled peers, sometimes even away from home, merely because the bricks and mortar of the local school are unsuitable to his needs. Rather than widen a lavatory door or provide an occasional helper for a child, the Bill provides for a child to be excluded from his local school and to be sent away to a special school with children who have a wide variety of real learning difficulties. That is not educationally sound, and that is why the amendment is so important.
There has been much too little effort since 1970 to make schools accessible to disabled children. If clause 1 is not amended, the Bill will allow children to be excluded from ordinary schools and to be segregated from other local children merely because the school is inaccessible. Rather than taking special action to make the school accessible,


the Bill classifies the child as having special learning difficulties. The child is to be made to fit the buildings when, clearly, the reverse would be the more humane procedure. We in the House must look to a future where the child's interests come first.
6 pm
It is often thought that adaptations to buildings that improve access for disabled people are not much good unless they are both comprehensive and costly. There will undoubtedly occasionally be considerable cost, but existing buildings can often be adapted at minor cost. I was recently at a church service in the Manchester area where the congregation had adapted the entrance to the church building so as to accept into their midst severely disabled people in wheelchairs who would otherwise have been excluded. They did so, not at modest cost, but at no cost at all except that of their own time and effort. As I said, there can be substantial costs in adapting some buildings, but disabled people are sometimes the victims of grandiose thinking. The proprietors of buildings should, if necessary, ask themselves whether minor adaptations to existing buildings might make all the difference between accepting or rejecting a disabled person.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I accept that this is an important argument, but how could any adaptation to a public building be made at nil cost?

Mr. Morris: I would be ready to introduce the hon. Lady to the Rev. Chris Ford, the vicar of the church that I was visiting, whose congregation used some of the props of their theatrical group to make a moveable ramp for the front of the church and to enable disabled people to enter. They were thus using existing resources to adapt the building. They would not claim that it was a very impressive adaptation.
My argument is that even a very minor adaptation can often make all the difference between accepting and rejecting a disabled person into the life of the community. That is a profoundly important consideration. Nevertheless, as I said, there can be quite substantial costs in adapting many existing buildings.

Mr. Carter-Jones: A substantial ramp was installed at the new central library in Eccles, not for disabled people, but to assist the library staff to load and unload books. It so happens, however, that the ramp has turned out to be an extremely good access point for wheelchair users. If a school is in such a difficult situation that access is difficult, a ramp could ease the delivery of goods and services and the servicing of the building by the caretaker while providing easier access, incidentally, for disabled people. This happens frequently. Two simple ramps installed in the House have been a great success.

Mr. Morris: From his considerable experience in these matters, my hon. Friend makes an important point. In helping disabled people we often help other groups. My hon. Friend instances library staff being assisted in their duties by the adaptation of the library in a way that has also helped disabled people. Often, by helping disabled people in wheelchairs we help young mothers with babies in prams. I must emphasise again, however, that many buildings require considerable expenditure to adapt and that the question of resources is important to this amendment.
It is not, however, true that the Government lack the resources to do what the amendment seeks. In fact, in a single day the Government crammed £1,400 million into the pockets of the richest 5 per cent. of taxpayers. Even while consulting their White Paper on Warnock, they found extra money for the assisted places scheme. Mary Warnock herself, in an article in The Times Educational Supplement on 13 March, found that as regrettable as I do. The assisted places scheme was a much higher spending priority for the Government than the Bill, and in her article Mary Warnock wrote:
If the present Government is prepared to say that £3 million (what is being spent on the Assisted Places Scheme) is chickenfeed, then they can find as much chickenfeed again for a different lot of chickens. Three million would come in extremely handy for funding a limited short-term pilot project of inservice training in schools, for the teaching of children with special needs …
It would also be extremely handy for adapting school buildings to make them more accessible to disabled children.
In addressing you, Mr. Speaker, on my point of order earlier today I referred to the amendment moved for the Government in another place by the Earl of Mansfield on 2 June. The amendment strengthens the access provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 as they affect Scottish law, including section 8 of the Act, which covers schools and other educational buildings. That amendment is clearly of considerable importance to this debate. It is a development that should be taken fully into account here today. In particular, the Secretary of State now has an opportunity to let us know how the Government initiative in another place affects their thinking on access to schools and clause 1.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) is promoting the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill in the present Session. I understand that the Government will be amending that Bill, too, in order to strengthen the access provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act as they apply to England and Wales. We should not ignore in this debate the effect of the initiatives being taken by the Government in another place.
Access to the built environment is essential if disabled people are to participate in the normal activities of life. Such access is as crucial to the enjoyment of a full and fulfilling life as all the aids and practical help with which disabled people can be provided by a caring society. Our concern must be to win for disabled people the opportunities that everyone else takes for granted. I mean opportunities to work and to enjoy every kind of leisure pursuit.
In breaking down architectural barriers we help the disabled to decide things for themselves, instead of always having decisions made for them. My experience is that there is nothing that more upsets the disabled than the condescension of the able-bodied towards them. I am frequently told that the biggest handicap that the disabled have to bear is the view taken of them by others.
The amendment aims to ensure that disabled children are a part of and not apart from society and that, like other children, they can participate fully in the life of their local communities. That is a profoundly important objective, which I hope the House will endorse by approving the amendment.

Dr. Boyson: I have too much respect for the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), as


another Lancastrian, to chase every statement that he made, such as that referring to the assisted places scheme. However, I must say that the average cost of comprehensive schools in Manchester is more than the average cost of its direct grant schools. Manchester would save money if it sent all its children to direct grant schools. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and I could discuss that matter later and issue a joint statement.
I agree with everything that the right hon. Gentleman said. I am glad to be able to say that. However, his amendment has nothing to do with the clause. His remarks refer more to the efficient use of resources. That would be the limiting factor. Clause 1 deals with the definition of "special educational needs". There is nothing that the right hon. Gentleman says with which I do not agree. I respect his work in this area. Indeed, many hon. Members have done a tremendous service to the disabled, and he is one of them.
Any list of categories must exclude certain people. Previously, there was a list of 10 categories. The whole purpose of the Bill, following the Warnock report, is to examine the question of those with special educational needs. If children have a special educational need, what do we do about it? They are categorised in three ways in the Bill. Subsection (1) states:
For the purposes of this Act a child has special educational needs if he has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him.
As I am not a lawyer I have to depend on advice about these matters. I am told that that provision includes children with mental difficulties who are unable to keep up with others. We wanted to include those with physical handicaps in the provisions in the Bill. It is not a question of saving money. Physically handicapped persons must come within the scope of the Bill, because they would otherwise be disadvantaged, which would create further special educational needs. The blind, the deaf and the physically handicapped all come within the provisions of subsection (2) (b). The right hon. Member knows that such disabilities affect one-sixth of our society at any one time, and one-fifth during a lifetime. That is the philosophy of Warnock.
The Bill helps us to examine the needs of handicapped persons, not with the aim of putting them into special schools—90 per cent. of them would not need special schools—but with the aim of discovering whether they can be accommodated within the normal system. If we removed subsection (2) (b) such people would not come within the remaining provisions. We would be left with paragraphs (a) and (c), which deal with the under-fives—whom we have already discussed—and those with mental disabilities. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe spoke impressively about the under-fives. All other handicapped persons who cannot easily be accommodated in normal schools—perhaps even children with partial hearing who need to sit at the front of the class—come within the provisions of subsection (2) (b). I accept that the wording could have been clearer, but I did not draft the Bill.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Our concern is that learning difficulties are being confused with access problems. When I tabled the amendment I consulted many experts in that area—they included people from organisations that have the Minister's respect and hon. Members from both

sides of the House. If there is any defect in the wording that can be improved by expert draftsmanship, we shall be glad to hear how that can be done. It is not our wish today to infuse animus into the debate. We want to make meaningful progress. If we could agree on some other form of wording, that would cause great delight on the Labour side of the House and also in the country.

Dr. Boyson: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's helpful intervention. It is a question of listing those who come within the categorisation. If we are wrong we shall consider the matter again. However, that is our legal advice. What the right hon. Member and I have said this afternoon will be noted. We shall check the wording of the clause. Our information is that that is the only way in which to include the right categories of disabled people. It has nothing to do with buildings.
I shall check the advice that I have given and ensure that it is right. There is time before the Bill goes to another place to put matters right. I know that when drafting the clause great difficulty was experienced in finding a way of including people without listing categories. It is not a simple Bill. I have spent a great deal of time working on it, as have many others. We have to look several times at an interpretation. It is not a question of excluding children from schools. I must put that fact on the record.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. Obviously others will gain the same impression as he did. If some believe that the Bill categorises them with the intention of putting them in special schools, I can only say that that is not the intention of the clause. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we have great respect for those working in special schools. There are two such schools in my constituency—the Kingsbury day school and the Grove Park school. I have visited both. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, one leaves such schools feeling very humble and full of respect for the staff, parents and children, and for the work that they are doing. At the same time, the whole point of the Bill—I know that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me—is that, wherever possible, handicapped children should be integrated into ordinary schools.
If, by virtue of this short debate, we have made the Bill's aim clear to the country—and we shall continue to make it clear—it has fulfilled a useful purpose. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no point in continuing with the debate. We shall check the interpretation and ensure that people in the country understand it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am not prepared to accept the Minister's assurances that the matter has nothing to do with resources. I can think of one or two children in my constituency with handicaps that make it difficult for them to attend normal schools. As I understand the clause, they would be categorised as needing special education, but if they lived in another area where the schools are constructed in a different way they would not be so categorised.

Dr. Boyson: If such children cannot be accommodated in a normal school, it becomes a special educational need. It is not a question of shutting children away. Such needs should be covered by the local authority. They have a special educational need and we must consider how we can


meet it. If we can accommodate them in normal schools we shall try to do so. However, if they cannot attend a normal school, that is the very definition of a special need.

Mr. Bennett: My point is that the physical building should not cause them to be categorised as needing special education. In many circumstances it is the physical conditions that cause the problems. If the physical conditions of the schools were created in such a way that they were easy of access and allowed for easy movement, there would be no need to categorise children.
If the building is all on one level and is easy of access, there is no need to treat any differently those suffering, for example, from certain heart conditions and the other children who attend the school. Of course the teacher will be aware that there is a slight medical background. As soon as stairs and problems of access are introduced into a school, the school becomes unsuitable for certain categories of children and it begins to be said that those children cannot be educated within the normal education system.

Mr. Harry Greenway: This is an interesting discussion. We are trying to find a way to give all children equal access to the curriculum. If we are to do that we must overcome certain physical problems of access to buildings. We are talking about a situation in which some children will be seen to be less than normal. They will be seen to be less than normal if other access facilities have to be provided. That is something that we must accept. Is it not sensible to say that the world is imperfect and that we should merely adhere to the principle of equal access to the curriculum? That does not and cannot necessarily mean equal access to all buildings.

Mr. Bennett: I am being led away from my argument. I accept that there are many difficulties in adapting existing buildings to provide equality of access. I plead with the Minister to examine new school building extremely carefully.
On Monday I visited the Avondale school, in my constituency, which is one of the schools that serve the local community extremely well. It is a caring and concerned school. The school consists of two buildings. One of the buildings was constructed in the 1930s. I suspect that for many handicapped children it is fairly easy to get round the old building.
The other part of the school was constructed within the past five years. There are repeated changes of level. That is a feature that makes it a nightmare for a child with even a small handicap. I accept that the design of the building was approved when a Labour Government were in office and that account was not taken of the difficulties that the design would create. I plead with the Minister to make it clear that no more schools should be designed that have pitfalls for the handicapped and make it less easy for them to be incorporated into the general education system.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I listened very carefully to the Minister's reply. It seemed quite clear that he wanted to meet the point that we are making in the amendment. He said that there was difficulty about drafting. He is prepared to look at the question again and, I assume, to propose a suitable amendment in another place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) makes a very important point about new

buildings. We cannot right the wrongs of centuries in a moment of time, but what we ought to be very concerned about is making sure that the wrong of excluding disabled people does not happen again. In the advice that we give to all educational authorities we should be quite clear that in future our educational buildings should, wherever possible, be as available to disabled children and young people as they are to other children and young people.
With the assurance given by the Minister, I do not wish to press the amendment. I thank him for agreeing to look very carefully at the points that we have made and to respond later as helpfully as he can.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert:
'(4) In the event that a child is assessed as having a learning difficulty partly or solely because the language (or form of the language) in which he is, or will be, taught is different from a language (or form of a language) which has at any time been spoken in his home, his parents shall have the right to be consulted.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 4, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'solely'.
No. 13, in clause 5, page 4, line 28, after 'parent' , insert:
'in a form and language known by the local education authority to be understood by the parent'.
No. 17, in page 5, line 6, at end insert:
'(c) Where the first language, or form of language, of the child is not recognised as standard English, arrangements are to be made to make any assessment in a language known by the local education authority to be understood by the child.'

Mr. Whitehead: The amendments deal with a series of representations that have been made to hon. Members on the position of children whose second language is English and whose parents in many instances feel, as do those who teach them, that the children have not been sufficiently, adequately, or fairly assessed within the education system. I attach no blame and I cast no aspersions. In the nature of things it has taken the education establishment some time to adjust to the fact that we now have many children who sometimes need assessment because of their special problems or handicaps. The fact that their culture as well as their primary language is not in the English tradition is a significant factor.
We have had a number of representations from the National Association for Multiracial Education, which has stressed that, as the Bill stands, there is a major problem for the child whose second language is English. It argues that, although learning difficulties ascribed in any way to language difficulties are excluded in clause 1, in all probability there will be a category of children for whom the approach and assessment of their teachers will be conditioned in the first instance by the children's inability properly to communicate in English, which will exacerbate other difficulties that they may have. We feel that it would be better to insert in clause 1 a new subsection (4) that would read as follows:
In the event that a child is assessed as having a learning difficulty partly or solely because the language (or form of the language) in which he is, or will be, taught is different from a language (or form of a language) which has at any time been spoken in his home, his parents shall have the right to be consulted.


The amendment proposes that lines 7 to 10 should be removed.
I accept that this is moving back slightly from the definition that we agreed in Committee in respect of clause 1(4). However, it has been argued strongly by NAME that many children in what it would call the Rampton category rather than the Warnock category—I suppose that we cannot refer to the Rampton category now and that we should use the term Swann category, and these are swans who often become geese—are sent to centres for the disturbed or to ESN schools because of an inability to recognise that their problems come from the failure of their teachers and assessors to grasp that the problem is one of communication, especially if they are speaking in the West Indian patois or they come from the Indian sub-continent or from parts of Africa. In the circumstances we feel that it should be possible to include in the Bill the specific right of parents to be consulted if there is to be an assessment of the child under the conditions of clause 1.
The right to be consulted should therefore be in the Bill, with the agreement that at some stage there may be a definition of "learning difficulty", which includes the concept of language. It has been excluded from the Bill as drafted and from our debates in Committee. On the whole, although there were differences in Committee, we went along with that at the time. We now believe that it should be acknowledged that the element of language is sometimes part of the problem. It has sometimes been a factor in the premature and wrongful definition of a child's problems, and has sometimes led to the child being consigned to an unsuitable destination.
6.30 pm
The learning difficulty linked to language, where the child's second language—not first language—is English, should be included in the Bill. The child's parents should have the right to be consulted when the difficulty is identified and communicated to them.
The question then arises how it would be communicated to them. That brings me to amendments Nos. 13 and 17. The Bill as drafted gives parents the right of consultation—a right to discuss the matter with those who propose to make the assessment. As I read the Bill, it does not give them a right to make an objection to stop the assessment. It allows them to object to the result of the assessment. The particular problem here—it was underlined by the national association—is that there might be cases where the parents, for good or bad reasons, did not wish the assessment to be made. The good reason would be if they distrusted the basis on which it was done, the tests that were used, and so on. Amendment No. 25 relates to that matter. The bad reason would be that they could not understand why the assessment was required or demanded.
In those circumstances it would be the worst possible start to proceedings if the parents could not understand why an assessment was required for their child, why their child was being asked to do various tests, being considered for assessment, and being taken to a special school from which, as far as they knew, he or she could not thereafter be removed, and where they might have fewer rights than most parents have under the 1980 Act.
We propose in the provision in clause 5 relating to information for parents to include the words:
in a form and language known by the local education authority to be understood by the parent",
and subsequently, in amendment No. 17:

Where the first language, or form of language, of the child is not recognised as standard English, arrangements are to be made to make any assessment in a language known by the local education authority to be understood by the child".
I hope that the intention is obvious, and I believe that the Government should accept the amendment. It is to make clear beyond peradventure that the parents of the child are absolutely clear about why the assessment is being demanded. They should know their rights of consultation and objection, and it should all be done in their language—the language in which they communicate with each other and with the child. That information and the form of testing used should also be conveyed to the child in the language with which the child is perfectly familiar—in other words, the child's first language. When the child's second language is English—perhaps even the child's third language—this could not be carried out without an undertaking in the Bill, or at least an undertaking from the Under-Secretary, that it will be possible to make allowance for this in the regulations.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will view the matter sympathetically. I know that he probably has more children of new Commonwealth origin in his constituency than do most other Conservative Members. He will therefore be aware of the particular difficulties that I and many others have in our constituencies. We must make allowances in this regard and do so in a manner that will be absolutely clear to the many parents whose first language is not English and who are deeply suspicious of the kind of educational assessment that their children receive in our schools.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I speak not only as the Member for Merioneth, but as a resident of Brent, South. I do so because many of the problems that were faced—no longer, fortunately—by speakers of Welsh, as a language other than English, are still faced by members of the black and other minority communities in inner cities who have sought to obtain a just education for themselves and for their children. It is ironic that in all our debates on an Education Bill, the medium of education—language—has not been a major feature, although I understand the reasons for it.
In a brief intervention in Committee the Under-Secretary said that the language issue was a "non-Warnock problem". He said:
Just because somebody speaks another language or a patois of another language, that is not a special educational need in the Warnock sense whereby he would be removed from the school".
Later he said:
Indeed, if it were dealt with as a Warnock problem it would worsen the whole situation. If this were to be linked with mental and physical handicap, it would create greater problems in our society, and the only reason this provision is put in is to stop that happening".
Then he said that he was
sure that we would handle the problem better in the future than it had been handled in the past".—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 10 March 1981; c. 239.]
I wish that I shared the Under-Secretary's optimism. It would have been easier to discuss the amendments in the context of the interim report of the committee of inquiry into the education of children from ethnic minority groups. Perhaps the Minister will say when we can expect to have that report, so that we can use it in discussing these issues.
I was not satisfied with the Minister's response. Representations have been made to me personally by the Commission for Racial Equality on behalf of other organisations. Other CRCs and organisations, particularly


those representing West Indian communities, have made strong representations on the matter. Profound concern exists, particularly within that community, about the large number of black children—the problem has not appeared suddenly—who over the years have been deprived under our education system.
I shall call it the under-achievement of the schools in teaching West Indian children, as compared with what is called the under-achieving child. It is the under-achievement of the system that caters for them as British citizens. I deliberately avoid using the word "immigrants", which is too often used in this context.
Black citizens of Britain suffer a disadvantage by being admitted to special schools. I shall not go through the whole history, because it was documented by ILEA in 1966. It was shown that the percentage of black children in ILEA ESN day schools was then 23·3 per cent., compared with 13·2 per cent. in the authority's primary and secondary schools. The majority of those were of West Indian origin. By 1967 the proportion had risen to 28·4 per cent. Gradually, during the 1960s and 1970s, it became a major campaign issue.
It is important to remind the House, in the absence of any black Members, that the black community in Britain of 4 per cent. is severely under-represented in our political system, unlike the Welsh, who are over-represented. So we should remember that this matter has been a major campaigning issue on the part of West Indians.
I refer only to the celebrated paper on the subject
How the West Indian Child is made Educationally Sub-normal in the British School System",
produced by Bernard Coard in 1971. The whole debate then on the nature of IQ tests and the cultural and class bias in those tests is still with us and is behind the concern which will no doubt be discussed in the interim report when it is published.
Concern over the placement of West Indian children continued to be voiced during the 1970s in Race Today and other journals. The formation of a black parents' movement, and the pressure that was exerted, led to the study by the Select Committee on Race and Immigration in its report on education. As a result of that study, the Rampton committee was established.
Evidence was given by 16 official bodies about the ESN classification to the Committee which produced the 1973 report. That shows the concern that exists about this issue. The 1973 report produced figures for the number of West Indian children who were then in special schools. When will those statistics be updated? The fact that we do not have ethnically based statistics now, and the fact that there was an apparent decision by the Department to suspend making those statistics available, has meant that it is impossible adequately to update this discussion.
However, in 1972, 3,850 West Indian children were in special schools. From the evidence presented to the Rampton committee it is clear that there is substantial concern about this issue. The statistics ought to be available to the House. They ought to be published and regularly monitored. That point was made by the Select Committee in 1976–77.
The West Indian community feels deeply about this issue. The ESN(M) classification has come to symbolise the under-achieving school system for West Indian kids. For that reason, the Government ought to take careful note

of what has been said by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). My concern is that, although the Warnock report did not deal specifically with language, it neglected that issue at its cost. It led to further serious misgivings within the West Indian community, particularly about the likely result of the classification arising from Warnock. Part of the problem is the nature of the classification, and that has featured in all our debates.
The fact that the report touches only briefly on this issue in one paragraph in 416 pages shows a failure to grapple with the problem. If the statistics for the 1970s still apply, and if West Indian children continue to be over-represented in special education—as they now are in ESN(M) schooling—it appears that one in two will require some special educational provision. That is now the position under ESN(M), and presumably that will be the position under Warnock.
A more realistic calculation may be that a third of children of West Indian origin may in future be considered to be in need of some special educational provision. Whether it is one in two or one in three, it still represents a major proportion of the West Indian community population. It is therefore essential for the Minister to look at this aspect of the Bill again, and particularly at clause 4. He should consider taking on board the amendments that have been proposed—perhaps in the regulations—so that this whole issue can be made clear in the light of the recommendations that will emerge from the Rampton committee.
The concern is that the pattern of placing of West Indian children in ESN(M) categories will be continued under the Warnock recommendations as implemented in the Bill. Indeed, the way in which the school system does not provide for those children will still remain a basic issue.
6.45 pm
That concern has been put to me forcefully by the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. In a letter that I received at the end of last month he said:
Our concern over clause 1 from a race relations perspective relates to how definitions of special educational needs might be applied to minority group children, particularly those of West Indian origin. It is our contention that many teachers hold stereotyped perceptions which, unintentionally, label black children as problems per se and that under the terms of this Bill they are disproportionately more likely to be so defined. We are not arguing that the Warnock Report or the Bill in any way intend to apply unfortunate stereotypes to black children. What we are suggesting is that given teachers' assumptions and the all embracing categories of SEN in the Bill this may well happen. If it does, the well known anxieties of black parents under the former ESN system will continue to be justified with the SEN concepts of the new Bill.
It is in that context that the issue of language being excluded from learning difficulties becomes crucial.
On that matter, David Lane said:
The Commission is very concerned about the general situation regarding mother tongue teaching and the continued failure of mainstream education to recognise the extent of linguistic diversity and the reality of bilingualism in many British schools. In fact we would welcome separate legislation on this issue.
However, we would support clause 1(4) on the grounds that it should prevent non-English speakers from being regarded as remedial or SEN. This has certainly happened in the past, and since this Bill is specifically concerned with educational handicap our primary interest is that non-English speakers do not fall within a framework of educational disability; on the contrary bilingualism should be seen as a positive advantage that should be developed and encouraged by our schools.


I quote that letter at some length, because it is right that the views of the commission should be referred.

Dr. Boyson: I take it that that letter supported clause 1(4).

Mr. Thomas: Yes, but we are arguing for an extension of the provision in clause 1(4), and that is the intention of the amendments.
We are also trying to ensure that, within the regulations, the points that have been made by the commission and the West Indian community, which we have repeated today, are taken on board by the Government. By addressing the language issue in the negative way in which they have done in the clause the Government have failed to face the basic concern of the West Indian community. For that reason, through guidance from the hon. Gentleman's Department to LEAs, it should be made clear that in identifying pupils who require special educational treatment in any form, and in assessing special educational needs, they must take account of cultural differences, the effects of discrimination and the institutional racism that is still found in many parts of the British educational system.
If we are to believe the press leaks, and certainly judging from my experience of the school system in inner city areas and other parts of Britain, these factors, especially the institutional racism that is part of our school system and which is too often reproduced through that system—particularly with the incursion of extreme Right-wing elements into schools—all have a bearing on the educational progress of blacks Britain, particularly West Indian children.
Within the regulations under the linguistic aspects of the Bill, it is essential that LEAs take account of the cultural bias in tests and assessments. That is another problem that has not been faced. We have had many discussion about culture bias, the cultural fair test and the way in which the IQ test tends to be ethnocentric in a Western way, but these matters must be taken on board by the Government.
It does net help those of us who argue for multi-culturalism in Britain to find that these aspects of policy are always lumped together in the DES under "educational disadvantage". The sooner that they are looked upon as aspects of policy in their own right rather than as a form of educational disadvantage, the sooner they will be more clearly recognised as a legitimate part of the British cultural system and education policy. The Secretary of State knows that I have made this criticism before.
LEAs should also ensure that the new procedures for assessment are fully explained and that parents are informed of their rights. I should like to go further than the amendment of the official Opposition. Not only should parents be consulted, but when the West Indian child is being assessed as having special educational needs, at least one person—other than the parents—who is West Indian or knowledgeable about the difficulties faced by the child should be involved in the assessment.
That recommendation is likely to feature in the Rampton report and it should appear in any regulations that the Government produce. We should also ensure that more educational psychologists who are themselves members of this minority community carry out the assessments.
Finally, I repeat the point on statistics. So long as the DES does not produce statistics on the ethnic mix in all

ESN(M) schools and under the new category, it will not be able to monitor the structure which has been discriminatory in the past. Young West Indians have been deliberately shunted off in a non-representative way into special forms of education, because they are over-represented in that part of the system. The statistics tell us more about the system than about these young people.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When we look back at this debate we may find that it has been unsatisfactory. The debate in Committee was unsatisfactory. The response from the Minister then was disappointing. The response this evening may be disappointing because the amendment is not satisfactory. In a sense, I would prefer to retain the Government's definition, but to add the amendment as well. The clause with subsection (4) is almost a non-discrimination clause. It is saying that people should not be discriminated against because of their ethnic background.
We have to face the fact that there are some children who have a language problem. There is a major need for consultation between education authorities and the parents, a point made by the amendment. I hope that the Minister will say that he will have another look at it and perhaps get it right in the House of Lords, rather than either accept or completely reject the amendment now.
A child who has not acquired a language base to start the thinking process is handicapped. On the other hand, many children manage to cope although the languages they hear around them may be confusing. They hear different languages, yet fairly quickly they manage to pick up sufficient of the two, or sometimes three, to be able to communicate in them. At the same time, other children are so confused by the different languages around them that they fail to achieve a language base.
The Bill should retain the clear statement that it is not intended to classify anyone purely because of language problems. We are anxious that there should be consultation with parents. Where a child has failed to achieve any language base, there is a recognition that he is handicapped and there must be full discussion with the parents about the best way to proceed.

Dr. Boyson: I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed by hon. Members. The only point of discussion is the best way of achieving what they want. I represent a multi-racial constituency, as the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said. I am sorry that he is not a constituent of mine in Brent, North. If he were, I would take greater care of him. The last two schools of which I was head also had many different coloured British citizens.
What we have tried to do in clause 1 is to specify those who have special educational needs within the Warnock sense. These needs are fairly permanent. They are not necessarily all permanent, but there are medical reasons, physical reasons and reasons of mental incapacity. Sometimes the local authority knows that the problems will be solved, but sometimes they will remain with the individual, like partial hearing or partial sight, for the rest of his life.
It is not just the Government's view, but my personal view, that it was right to include subsection (4). This is why I questioned the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) about the view of David Lane. The grumble for years by hon. Members has been that West Indians who


medically and physically should be able to cope in school and who have not coped because of a language difficulty have often ended up in a subnormal school. This provision was put in to prevent that.
This was recognised as a special factor. That does not mean that the local authority may ignore it. Under section 8(1) of the 1944 Act there is a specific responsibility on local authorities to cope with that situation. I do not think that there is any doubt among Opposition Members that this was put in to make sure that people were regarded as having special educational needs just because they had a language defect that should be met within the schools. I agree entirely with hon. Members about that.
The hon. Member for Derby, North said that basically this was a Rampton problem. During the debate we have made inquiries about Rampton. The first report is being published next week, so there is no question of delay upon it. It would be wrong to bring this matter into the context of a Warnock Bill. It would be resented in the long run by the minority communities if they found themselves linked with people with other defects as having special educational needs purely and simply because their language ability was not up to the proper standard. It was with the best of intentions that the subsection was included.
It is important to include the word "solely". It is more difficult if there are various mixed-up reasons why people are not coping. If one can define that people have not easy fluency, it is a special problem that must be dealt with, but it is wrong to deal with it within the Warnock context.
It is important that when parents do not speak English contact about special educational needs is made by someone who can communicate with them and in whom they have trust. That is a sensible suggestion. I do not think that we need to put it in the Bill. We can cover it in the guidance that will go out. More and more local authorities are doing this. The hon. Member for Derby, North asked whether we would cover it by guidance. I give an assurance that we shall give guidance to local education authorities that when they are dealing with children whose parents do not speak reasonable English the special educational needs of the children must be pointed out to the parents by somebody who can communicate with them in their own language and in whom they have trust.
As a result of inquiries made last week I have found that about half the local education authorities have instances involving difficulties in communication and that three-quarters of them have now established ways of coping. In many instances the best guidance is what catches up with good practice and makes it general.
We cannot accept these amendments. Clause 1(4) is right as it is. On the other matters of communication with the parents and giving information wherever possible, I agree with the request of the hon. Member for Derby, North that we issue guidance so that people who are handicapped can be integrated into the community.

7 pm

Mr. Whitehead: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for what he said. I wish to return to the amendments, but in no churlish spirit. We had a long debate on clause 1(4) in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that I went along with the majority of the Committee in saying that clause 1(4) had been

misunderstood by a section of the immigrant community. It was not intended as an anti-immigrant measure—quite the reverse—and to that extent it had been misunderstood. Secondly, I said that something like it should be included in the Bill.
There are two reasons why I changed my mind in part, and they have been touched on by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). The first reason is that we had at that stage, and not before, a large number of representations that this was not enough, and that even if we accepted the spirit of clause 1(4) there were circumstances in which additional rights and safeguards were needed for parents and child alike where the child's learning difficulties were partly and consequentially the result of not having English as his first language.
I accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said, that the amendment, which we do not wish to press to a Division, does not meet the whole case. We wish the Government, by way of instruction or fiat, not necessarily by amendment to the phraseology of the subsection, to make certain that, where a child's learning difficulties derive in part from linguistic problems, the parents must be told if this is an element in the assessment that is being made, because of the great difficulties that have been encountered in some areas.
The second reason why I had reservations about clause 1(4) as we accepted it was the curious proceedings in connection with the Rampton committee. This is not the time and place to go into the fate of Mr. Anthony Rampton and the resignation of three members of the committee. It appeared to us that the Government were dragging their feet, that it was at least possible to say that Rampton had been removed and the others had gone with him because the Government did not wish to widen the remit of the committee to look more carefully at the research being undertaken into the education of the ethnic minorities in the way that the committee perhaps would have wished.
It might be that the Government wished to speed up the process and get the report out next week and that they wanted a wide and comprehensive view of the prospect for multi-racial education, but, given that local difficulty over the Rampton report, we thought it right to come back to this matter this afternoon.
Although the Under-Secretary of State met me fully on the spirit of amendment No. 13, he did not mention our feelings about amendment No. 17, which is designed to ensure that the local education authority, when making its assessment of a child, does so in a language with which the child is fully conversant. I shall come back to that on the subject of the right of access of parents to information about the testing modes that are used in the assessment of a child, but I should like to hear something from the Under-Secretary of State on the point I have raised before leaving this group of amendments.

Dr. Boyson: The guidance to which I have already referred would also cover that point.

Mr. Whitehead: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

PROVISION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION: DUTIES OF LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES ETC.

Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 2, line 18, leave out 'children' and insert 'pupils'.—[Dr. Boyson.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 29.

Mr. Whitehead: The Under-Secretary of State is fond of sotto voce interventions. I understood him to ask me from a sedentary position whether I wanted him to add anything. Because of our concern about the 16 to 19-year-olds, I should like the Under-Secretary of State to say why this form of words is used. Is it an attempt to safeguard the position in the future for the 16 to 19 category, or is it an attempt to exclude the 16 to 19 category from the Bill? It is capable of either interpretation and the hon. Gentleman should put on record the correct interpretation.

Dr. Boyson: I am grateful for that inquiry from the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), because it enables me to clear up the position. The word "pupils" is intended to bring in the 16 to 19-year-olds. They would not be brought in otherwise. They would be under section 8(2) of the 1944 Act. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we are here doing something with which he as well as my hon. Friends will agree.

Mr. Whitehead: In that case, we welcome the amendments and simply urge upon the Government the necessity for haste in the review promised in Committee of provision for the 16 to 19-year-olds—a review that, in the parlous condition of that age group in the country at the moment, we are awaiting with some urgency.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 18, after 'governor', insert
'provided that the governor so designated has practical experience of special education or of children with special educational needs'.
The amendment was tabled in the names of Members on the Liberal Bench, and in adding my name I was confident that I was doing the right thing. What was intended by the clause was that if the duty of being the responsible person was being delegated, not to the head teacher not to the chairman of the governors, but to another governor, that other governor should have some special qualifications, and I still believe that.
The amendment makes it clear that if the duty is delegated to another governor, that govenor must have the special qualifications listed in the amendment. Having read it through, I am not certain whether the qualification applies, not just to the other governor, but to the chairman of the governors. It is saying that in that governing body there must be someone with that special qualification. If that is what the wording means, I have some reservations about it.
I hope that the Minister will make it clear that it is his intention to ensure that if the duty is delegated beyond the head teacher and the chairman of the governors it is delegated to someone with special knowledge or special responsibility, and that he will do his best to ensure that on governing bodies there are people with experience and understanding of the problems of children who need special education.

Mr. Beith: I am indebted to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). This is not the first time that we are supporting the same amendment, but it is the first time that he has moved an amendment for me. I apologise to the House for the fact that a related matter kept me from the Chamber. We tabled the amendment to express in the form of a narrow point a wider objective. On the governing bodies of schools providing for handicapped children there is a clear need for a governor with experience and knowledge of dealing with handicapped children.
The effect of the amendment is merely to provide that in those cases in which a governor is the responsible person, that governor should have experience of special education. That is much more limited than the wider purpose that I am talking about. In practice, in the majority of schools that responsibility will be exercised by the head teacher, as the clause allows, and not by a governor. It would be rare for a governor to have that responsibility.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will bear in mind the purpose behind the amendment and the importance that it will attach to at least one member of the school governing body having practical experience of dealing with handicapped children.
We have all been involved in trying to reform the system of school governing to ensure that there are governors who have practical involvement as parents or as teachers and who are rooted in the problems with which they are dealing. That is even more true of special education. In many special schools it has been possible to gather together governors with a real interest in and concern for special education.
I served as a governor of a special school for a number of years. I was impressed by the commitment of some other governors and by the experience that they built up, particularly those who came to school government through the voluntary societies and organisations to which we referred earlier. That experience will not be available on the governing body of an ordinary school into which a small number of handicapped children go. That experience will be needed.
I very much hope that ways will be sought to ensure that any such school has a governor with that experience. Should he be the one to whom those responsibilities are delegated, it will be even more necessary for him to have that experience.

Dr. Boyson: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has been misled by the Liberals, though I am sure that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) did not intend to do so. In these days of dangerous party alliances, one has to be careful.
The interpretation by the hon. Member for Stockport, North of the clause is correct. We have had various arguments about interpretation, but I agree with the one that he gave. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. This is a probing amendment, which says that where there can be a variety of governors who represent different interests and different specialties, that can be of advantage to the school.
I have always found the clause to be rather odd. It is an odd headmaster who delegates one of his governing body to tell the teaching staff that they have someone in the school with special educational needs, unless he has


lost his voice or cannot walk around with a blackboard and a piece of chalk. I should like to see a school that operates such a system.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: There are teacher representatives on the new governing bodies. Therefore, it would be possible for the teacher who has a special responsibility for a remedial class, or for special education in the school, to be a member of the governing body.

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member, with a blinding flash of inspiration, has shown why the clause was included.
In the Warnock committee there was talk of a responsible person who had information about special educational needs, or did not have that information. It was said that he should be responsible in a general school if there was a unit for special educational needs. In this case we are referring to ordinary schools. I accept what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said. I must not digress, but I shall return to the point.
The idea is that on governing bodies of schools in which there are many children with special educational needs—after all, there are 35,000 schools—wherever possible there should be people who know about the special needs of those children.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

PROVISION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION OTHERWISE THAN IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 32 after first 'may', insert
'after consulting the child's parent'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 12, in page 3, line 34 at end insert—
'(2) The local education authority shall notify the parent in writing of their decision and of the reasons for making it.
(3) The parent may appeal in writing to the Secretary of State within three months of notification of the decision.
(4) On an appeal under subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, direct the local education authority to convene a special review committee to re-appraise their decision.'.
No. 18, in page 5, line 14, leave out 'to reconsider their decision', and insert
'to convene a special review committee to reappraise their decision'.

Mr. Carlisle: I acknowledge that the amendment is the result of an amendment to clause 3 moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). He was concerned about consultation with parents. I am grateful to him for raising the matter and enabling us to table the amendment.
Clause 3 re-enacts clause 56 of the 1944 Act, which provides for the ability of the local authority to provide education other than in a school. It states:
3. If, in relation to any child in their area who has special educational needs, a local education authority are satisfied that it would be inappropriate for the special educational provision

required for that child, or for any part of that provision, to be made in a school, they may arrange for it or, as the case may be, for that part of it, to be made otherwise than in a school.
Therefore, we are dealing with a child who is identified as having an educational need which requires provision to be made for it.
The learning difficulty is likely to be a disability that would prevent that child from being able to attend school. The disability may be permanent or of a nature which may lead to a statement being provided under clause 7. In that case, full consultation would have taken place with the parents.
A local authority may sometimes wish to make educational provision other than at a school for a child whom it assesses as having an educational need, when a statement under clause 7 would not have been appropriate because, possibly, the educational need was temporary, such as an illness which required that the child should be taken to hospital or should convalesce at home after he had been ill. Whether the child was at home or in a hospital which did not have a special school, the local authority should be prepared to provide for that child's education.
If it is intended to make a statement under clause 7 for a child, before the local authority can carry out the necessary assessment it may wish to provide for it. In those circumstances it is felt right that, when the local authority proposes to make such a provision, the parent should be consulted.
The intention of the amendment is to provide for that consultation with the parent before arrangements are made. It is consistent with the intention of the Bill to encourage greater participation of the parents in those matters. That was not in the Bill as drafted and it should have been. I believe that it improves the Bill, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eccles for having raised the matter in Committee.

Mr. Beith: Amendments Nos. 12 and 18 are linked with amendment No. 11 for discussion, but I did not expect the Minister to refer to them until I had spoken.
Amendment No. 12 refers to education for the most severly handicapped children who are ruled not suitable for education in either an integrated or a special school—in other words, those children likely to be educated in hospital. The amendment seeks to import an appeal procedure into the decision that they will not be able to go to a school of any kind.
In principle, every parent should have the written explanation that the clause requires of the LEA's decision, so that it has to set out the principles of its decision and parents have the opportunity to appeal against it. The Government have been keen to extend appeal procedures and parental choice as widely as possible, and parents of handicapped children feel strongly that they should have the same rights. The right must, surely, apply to parents of a child who they believe could be educated outside hospital at a special school and want to challenge the local authority's decision that the child should remain in hospital for its education. Such parents would rightly feel deprived if they were not given an appeal procedure.
In Committee the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) stimulated an interesting discussion about appropriate and inapproprate school premises, which revolved around the lifts and stairs at Highbury Grove and whether a wheel-chair-bound pupil could cope with the school. The discussion was a reminder that in words such as "appropriate" repose a local authority's arbitrary


powers. It is sometimes too easy for a local authority to make a simple and arbitrary decision without having to reconsider whether it could, by even limited means, make a special school appropriate for a child by taking on an extra member of staff, by recruiting a part-time member of staff, or by providing a facility at an ordinary school.
If it is too easy for a local authority to make an arbitrary decision, the pressures that we want to generate through the Bill will not be applied to get children into schools. The pressures must apply as strongly to a child whom we would like to get out of hospital and into a special school as to a child who would like to get out of a special school and into an ordinary school. I am therefore keen for the Minister to reconsider an appeal procedure. I am not tied to the form of the amendment. There are alternatives, but somehow we should seek to extend the appeal procedure.
Amendment No. 18 does the same thing in a different case. It deals with the assessment of whether a child needs special education. There is provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State, if he sees fit, to direct the local education authority to reconsider its decision. I presume that he is most likely to do that in response to an appeal from parents who believe that their child is wrongly required to have special education facilities.
Under the amendment local authorities would be required to convene a special review committee to reappraise the decision, under the direction of the Secretary of State. The clause merely provides that the same people will go through the process again when the Secretary of State tells them to, which is not ideal. It is preferable to use another specially constituted body.
Again, the analogy, if not the precise detail, is with the Education Act 1980, under which a local authority can set up an appeal machinery distinct from an education committee. We argued at the time about the merits of the procedure, but the Government are convinced of it and have sought to implement it in practice. Surely we can have an analogue of that procedure in this instance. If the Government believe that the local education authority in its normal form is not sufficient to reconsider the school placement of an ordinary child, they must recognise that the same consideration applies to an assessment decision. If the local authority is required to reappraise a decision, a review or appeal committee should be involved. In both cases we seek to extend a principle to which the Government are firmly wedded.

Mr. Wigley: Is there not a converse side to the hon. Gentleman's argument? In some instances LEAs may not be providing special education in hospitals where it is needed. Should there not be an appeal machinery for parents who want their children to have such an education?

Mr. Beith: Hospital education of handicapped children is important, but I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. I am suggesting that a placement decision should be able to be the subject of appeal, by which I mean a decision on whether a child should be educated in hospital or in a special or normal school. The question whether facilities are available to educate a child who remains in hospital is important, although I am not sure that it lends itself to an appeal procedure in the same way.
If there is no appeal procedure to determine placements, there will be less pressure on local authorities to ensure that the facilities are adequate. If, on appeal, a

local authority has to defend a decision to leave a child in hospital, it will have to say that there are adequate facilities in the hospital and that the child would be better and more appropriately educated there than in a special school. The local authority would have to satisfy itself about its arrangements with the AHA and make sure that the facilities were available. The existence of an appeal procedure would be a stimulus to make sure that there was adequate provision. I agree with the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that hospital education, as on a number of occasions in the past, could become the cinderella of the three, where least provision is made.
I ask the Minister to reconsider the desirability of building an appeal procedure into the provisions.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: There are two issues at stake in this group of amendments. The first concerns children who need temporary educational provision outside the school system, and the second those who may require long-term provision. I have been pressed by several educationists in Stockport to probe the question of temporary provision.
I make no complaint that my new clause 10 was not selected, but it attempted to make it clear that, where we are dealing with the short-term problem, although there should be consultation with parents—which is what the Government suggest—the authorities should be able to get on with providing the education without being involved in an appeal. A youngster may have an accident and find himself in hospital for several months. He should be able to continue his education there. An appeal procedure would be inappropriate. Everyone would have to do the best they could in the circumstances.
My new clause 10 covered the case I gave of a pregnant girl. It would be appropriate for such a girl to receive tuition at home long after it was appropriate for her to attend school. Again an appeal procedure would not be right. By the time an appeal had been heard the circumstances would have changed. I can think of many other instances.
The clause is right if it is dealing only with temporary circumstances, but if it is to be used in cases where, for instance, a child is permanently in hospital, the appeal procedure would be appropriate. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the clause will be used only in temporary circumstances, and that he will assure educationists that they can continue to make the day-to-day, practical provisions that they see as essential, without an appeal procedure. However, where children are permanently hospitalised there should be the same right of appeal as if they were in an educational establishment.

Mr. Carter-Jones: As a result of my representations, we have an improvement to a clause that I did not intend. Let me explain what I was getting at.
If a child cannot receive education in a special or ordinary school because of his health and has to be educated in hospital, he would, in reality, come under the medical consultant of the hospital. A clinical judgment would be exercised. The medical consultant would decide whether the child was to receive education. That was my point. I did not want the consultant simply to decide that a child should have no education or, say, only one hour a day for medical reasons. That was my line of argument.
Fortunately, the amendment improves the Bill, although it does not go as far as I wished. As one cannot


interfere with the clinical judgment of a consultant, I had hoped to provide a check and balance so that the parents had the right to be told by the local education authority and the consultant what should be done for the child while in hospital. It was a mix of educational and medical need. As consultants are often kings, I thought that they should consult the parents regarding their decisions. Nevertheless, I accept the amendment.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am sorry if we have not done what the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) wishes us to do, but I am glad that he finds what we have done an improvement.
I shall deal first with what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said about amendments Nos. 12 and 18. With great respect, I think that there is a misunderstanding. This was pointed out by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). I fear that I did not make the position clear. It seems to me that the clause inevitably deals with temporary stays in hospital, or temporary provision for education other than in a school. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Stockport, North that, whereas parents should be consulted in such cases, it would not be appropriate for an appeals mechanism to operate in that time scale.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was concerned with what he described as the most serious cases, in which the local authority decides that the child cannot be educated in an ordinary school or even in a special school, but that his needs are such that he must be educated somewhere other than in a school. He was anxious that the parents of such a child should have the right to appeal.
That situation is already covered. In a long-term situation of that kind the child would undoubtedly be covered by clause 4 as a child for whom the authority would be required to determine special educational provision to be made. Once the child comes into that category, the authority is required to make an assessment, in which the parents must be involved. The authority may make a statement stipulating, say, the hospital, in which case the parent has the right to appeal against the statement, or it may choose not to make a statement, in which case the parent has the right to appeal against refusal to make a statement. It seems to me, therefore, that in the long-term situation envisaged by the hon. Gentleman a right of appeal would inevitably exist as a result of the procedures under clauses 5 and 7.
Finally, if for some reason the authority failed to make a statement, the parents would have the right to request an assessment under clause 9. Having requested the assessment, they could themselves set the appeals procedure in motion so that the appeal could go through the committee and eventually to the Secretary of State.
I think that subsection (2) of amendment No. 12 about notification of the parents is therefore met, although we have not said that it should be in writing. Subsection (3) assumes a different situation and does not arise.
Whereas a case may be returned to the local authority by the Secretary of State with a request that it reconsider its decision, I believe that it would be wrong to lay down in statute the form that that reconsideration should take, which would be the effect of amendment No. 18, which suggests a special review committee to reappraise the

decision. I say that because probably the most appropriate method of reconsideration in most cases would be not the setting up of a new review committee but a reassessment of the child's needs by the professionals in the light of the Secretary of State's comments.

Mr. Wigley: I followed with interest the Secretary of State's cross-references to the parents' right to appeal for an assessment under clause 9. Will he confirm that, as local authorities follow the 1970 Act with regard to education in hospitals, appeals may be made in relation to provision of a full range of education in hospitals, including the 55 per cent. of hospitals that provide no educational facilities for children under the age of five?

Mr. Carlisle: I am not sure that I could answer that with certainty at this moment, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives an answer. If it does not arrive in time for debate on Report, it will certainly be in time for him to review the matter before the Bill goes to another place.
I hope, therefore, that the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) will be withdrawn when the time comes. I think that we have achieved the desired effect through our own amendment and the present wording of the legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I do not think that that arises. We are debating Government amendment No. 11, with which the other amendments were linked.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

ASSESSMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

Amendment proposed: No. 14 in, page 4, line 36, leave out '15' and insert '29'.—[Dr. Boyson.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 23, in clause 7, page 6, line 12, leave out '15' and insert '29'.
No. 24, in clause 7, page 6, line 14, leave out '15 days' and insert 'six weeks'.
No. 28, in clause 9, page 8, line 5, leave out '12' and insert '6'.

Mr. Hannam: I wish to say a few words about the amendments, especially Nos. 23 and 28, which are in my name. All the amendments relate in some way to the time allowed for appeals and assessment.
I am extremely pleased that the Government have accepted a longer period for parents to make representations and to seek advice from the local authority and any other appropriate persons when they wish to make representations about a proposed statement. I therefore welcome wholeheartedly Government amendment No. 14, which extends the period from 15 to 29 days.
My amendment No. 23 relates to the time available to parents who have been served with a copy of a proposed statement. As the Bill stands, they would still have only 15 days in which to make representations to the local authority. I therefore ask that, as under amendment No. 14 with regard to assements, the period for representations on a statement should be extended to 29 days.
I do not regard 15 days as sufficient. Indeed, if my amendment No. 22, which calls for fuller disclosure of


evidence leading to the statement, is successful, the extra time will be necessary in any case. It is difficult for me to put my argument effectively at this stage, however, as amendment No. 23 is in a sense consequential upon No. 22, which is to be taken in a later group. But, regardless of that, the argument still stands on its own feet.
I hope that in considering amendment No. 23 my hon. Friend will think of it in terms of a situation to which I hope the House will agree later, namely, the full disclosure of the evidence leading to a statement being made. I think that in those circumstances we would agree that 15 days would not allow full examination and consideration of the factors influencing the local education authority in making that statement.
If my later amendment, which provides for full disclosure of information, were accepted in some form or other, we should have to accept that we would need more than 15 days for representations to be made, because of the time necessary to examine the various pieces of evidence. The disclosure of the evidence would require that extra time. But even if my later amendment is not accepted, I still consider that we would need to extend the period from 15 to 29 days.
My proposal in amendment No. 28 would reduce the period for which a parent would have to wait for an assessment. We decided in Committee that 12 months was far too long for a parent to have to wait for assessment. Six months seems to be much more reasonable. If the local authorities are at all worried about having constant vexatious representations, they have an extra safeguard, because even if we reduce the period to six months they do not have to comply with repeated requests unless they are satisfied that it would be appropriate to do so. I hope that my amendment to reduce the period from 12 to six months will be acceptable to the Government and that it will not need redrafting.
I hope that the Government will also consider sympathetically my other amendment, No. 23, which seeks to do what the Government amendment seeks to do, that is, to extend the period from 15 to 29 days.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In the information-collecting sittings and then in the Standing Committee stage proper, I pressed for information on how long the appeals procedure was to take, because it has been represented to me in Stockport that there is concern there that the appeals procedure could take so long that it could be detrimental to the child involved.
I asked the Minister in Committee to produce a flow chart giving the time involved in going through the appeal procedure, and. I repeat that request this evening. It has been suggested to me that the period could now run to almost six months. There is the question of what education the child is to receive during that six-month period pending the outcome of the appeal procedure.
I pressed the Minister in Committee and he gave me assurances, but I press him again to make it absolutely clear to parents that they can opt not to use the appeal procedure if they are satisfied. I tabled an amendment, No. 16, which was not selected, the purpose of which was to stress to the parents that it is to the advantage of the child for the assessment to be made by mutual agreement and as quickly as possible. It is to the advantage of the child, if he does not intend to appeal, to inform the local

authority as soon as possible, so that the local authority does not have to provide for the potential appeal time between the appropriate stages in its efforts.
I realise that it is a difficult balance to achieve. The Government are correct in giving parents the right to the longer period in which to make the appeal, but it should be made clear to people who do not want to appeal that they must let the authority know quickly, otherwise 29 days will go during which the child could have been receiving the benefit of a mutually agreed scheme of assessment.
I fully agree about the need to reduce the assessment period from 12 to six months, but it has been stressed to me in Stockport that there are resource implications for the local authority. Those concerned have told me that becoming too greatly involved in making formal assessments prevents their doing the informal work that some of them feel to be much more important. I hope that there will be a clear commitment by the Government to make the resources available, so that sufficient staff can be employed by the local authorities to enable them to do the work effectively.

Dr. Boyson: Amendment No. 14 seeks to increase from 15 to 29 days the period in which the parents have a right to approach the local authority when it informs them that it intends to prepare an assessment. It is important that there should be plenty of time. The local authority, perhaps through advice on health grounds, may decide that there should be an assessment of the pupil, and that may lead to a statement being made. The postal services are not always as good as we should like them to be in certain parts of the country, and 15 days would not always be sufficient time. On the other hand, the period should not be too long.
The amendment was tabled following discussion in Committee, when hon. Members on each side took part, including my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), and I hope that it will win the approval of the House. When the local authority has announced to the parents who are concerned about their child that it wants to do an assessment, it is important that at that stage the parents should have time to take advice, to consider the question, and to tender information. I do not think that it is so important later. If we begin to extend everything to 29 days, the time taken will be far too long.
The Government do not wish to accept amendments Nos. 23 and 24, one of which would provide a period of six weeks and the other a period of 29 days. The reason is that the parents have already been involved. This is now the second stage, the stage of the draft statement. The parents have already had 29 days in which to reply to the authority after it has said that it intends to make an assessment. The parents have already been alerted to the position by then. We do not want to put into the hands of parents who wish to delay matters a means of delay that could be harmful to the child. After all, the parents have many other weapons that they can use at a later stage. If there is an allocation to a school, the parents can appeal if they are not satisfied. They can go to the Secretary of State at that stage. We feel, therefore, that 15 days should be sufficient to keep things flowing.
The Government would like to accept amendment No. 28. It is a question whether the parents can ask for a reassessment after one year or after six months. The hon.
Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said that he was worried because of the resource implications in Stockport, but the local authority is not compelled to do a reassessment. We feel that the weapon should be that of the parents. If, after six months, they feel that there has been a change in their son or daughter and that there should be a reassessment, they can state their reasons to the local authority.
I therefore commend to the House amendments No. 14 and 28, but I hope that the House will not approve amendments Nos. 23 and 24. We are not against the spirit of them, but we do not want to delay the flow of action once it starts.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

ASSESSMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF TWO

Mr. Hannam: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 5, line 28 leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 20 and 21.

Mr. Hannam: In Committee I stressed, as other hon. Members did, the importance of early identification of handicapped children and of appropriate educational provisions which could greatly improve their educational potential. We expressed concern that, as stated in the Warnock report, the fears and observations of parents are often ignored by professionals. I am pleased that the Government have, in essence, accepted that argument by accepting new clause 1. That clause lays a duty on area health authorities to inform the parents—in the case of children under 5—that a child has special educational needs and to bring that to the attention of the education authority.
In addition, Government amendment No. 20 gives the parents of a child under 2 years old an absolute right to assessment. Therefore, those two amendments go a long way towards ensuring proper co-ordination of the statutory authorities, which in turn should ensure the full indentification of handicapped children and the appropriate educational provisions. In Committee we made great progress with the under-twos and we shall do so again with the Government's acceptance of amendments.
However, a loophole remains which may result in some handicapped children not receiving the vital early education that they require. I am speaking of a situation in which parents do not ask for an assessment and in which the local education authority does not undertake an assessment although the child has been referred to it. Under new clause 1, the health authority will have referred a child with special educational needs to the local education authority.
It is hoped and expected that the local education authority will carry out an assessment of all children referred to it by the area health authority. However, where that procedure is, for some reason, not followed, it is important that extra protection should be written into the Bill. There will always be the odd case in which a parent—through benign or deliberate neglect or through

sheer ignorance of the methods necessary to get an assessment carried out—does not ask for an assessment. As a result of that serious omission the child may suffer in later life.
I have asked that "shall" should be inserted into the clause in place of "may" to ensure that children in need of assessment—as determined by the evidence given by the health authority—will be assessed regardless of whether the parent has asked for it. Amendment No. 19 seeks to ensure that a child is assessed.
Amendment No. 21 deals with the provision of special education. It seeks to ensure that children under the age of 2, who could benefit from the appropriate educational intervention, will receive it. In some cases the local education authority will not be able to do anything at such an early age. That might be true, for example, where a child suffers from only a physical handicap. Children suffering from physical handicaps alone will not necessarily benefit from special education.
However, it is hoped that the local education authority will keep a close watch on the child to see whether the physical handicap has any effect on his or her social and psychological development and the possible educational implications of that. In many cases early assistance is vital. That is demonstrated by the success of the pre-school home-based projects. In Committee we discussed such projects.
In Exeter there is the Honeyland home visiting project. There are many other projects, such as the Portage project. Such projects help certain groups of children, such as those suffering from Down's syndrome. In such cases early stimulation can reduce development impairment.
In addition, parents can be trained to stimulate their children, which is extremely important. Sensory stimulation is a precondition of education for blind and deaf children. Peripatetic teachers can start such stimulation as early as six months. In Committe we discussed dyslexia, and it aroused a great deal of interest. The early development of the senses of touch, smell and hearing in dyslectic children can improve their audial memory and so do much to overcome their problem with the visual recognition of words.
Such children would have a statement made under clause 6(2), and the amendment would lay a duty on local education authorities to carry out the educational provision as specified in the statement. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the principle, even if the drafting of the amendments is unsuitable. I hope that he will consider it, with a view to drafting other amendments later.

Dr. Boyson: Government amendment No. 20 gives a parent the power to request the assessment of a child under the age of 2. Amendments Nos. 19 and 21 lay an obligation on the authority to assess the child if it receives the necessary information. It also lays an obligation on an authority to make the necessary provision for that child. We hope that the House will accept the amendment.
We are sympathetic to the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on amendments Nos. 19 and 21, but they were tabled only this week. I assure my hon. Friend that we should like to consider the amendments before the Bill goes to the other place. Perhaps we can find an arrangement that will satisfy my hon. Friend and other hon. Members.

Mr. Wigley: I welcome the Minister's remarks. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) made some


extremely valid points. Earlier I stressed the need for education to start before a child is 2 years old. Parents may be reluctant to admit their children's educational needs. There is no doubt that parents have problems when it comes to adjusting—problems that will be greatest during the first two years. We may need to go further than the Government might otherwise have thought necessary to safeguard the interests of the child when the parents are trying to adjust to the situation. Therefore, I am glad that the Government will reconsider the amendment before the Bill goes to the other place.

Mr. Hannam: I welcome my hon. Friend's assurance that he will look carefully at the principles that I have outlined. I hope that some changes can be introduced in the other place that will ensure that the provisions are incorporated in the Bill, because they are important. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 5, line 29, at end insert
'and shall do so at the request of that parent'.—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]

Clause 7

APPEALS AGAINST STATEMENTS

Mr. Hannam: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 6, line 21, at end insert
'shall, at the request of the parent, provide all the relevant information on which the proposed statement was made'.

Mr. Depuity Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 25, in page 6, line 21, at end insert
'and at the parents' request supply the evidence on which this statement is made, including the names of any tests or other assessment tools used.'.

Mr. Hannam: We come now to the thorny question of the disclosure of information, which provoked one of the most interesting and fascinating debates in Committee. Everyone finally agreed that we needed to find a formula that would allow almost all the information to be disclosed to parents, but in a way that would not harm the parent or the professionals engaged in formulating the reports. The wording has caused me concern and given rise to a few sleepless nights. I have tried to resolve satisfactorily the complex issue of a parent's right of access to the report on which his or her child is assessed and the statement made.
The view was strongly put in both written and oral evidence to the Committee from voluntary organisations that parents should have the right of access to information. At present, information essential to the informed choice of a school and other vital issues about a child's future are being unnecessarily withheld.
8 pm
Such information is considered to be essential when a parent is considering an appeal. A point also made in Committee was that reports often contain factual errors or unsubstantiated subjective judgments and that parents have no right of redress. The Government's argument against including right of access, made in discussion with a number of professionals in education, seems to rest on two main points. First, in principle, they accept the right of parents' access to information and do not condone the unnecessary withholding of information, but in a small number of cases, probably per cent., the information is

sensitive or disturbing and it is considered that access to that information would cause harm to the parents and/or the child.
Secondly, the opposition to full right of access rested on the argument that if parents had access to reports there would be that reluctance on the part of the professionals to commit their opinions to paper. The third argument is that the Bill says nothing on the disclosure of reports, which may be a strength rather than a weakness. It is expected that as parents will be involved in all Stages of assessment, they will have access to reports. So there are two major arguments against full disclosure, and the third is that if the Bill says nothing it will come out all right in the end.
I appreciate the concern that has been expressed, but in Committee we came to the conclusion that they were giving the wrong emphasis. First, we know that we are dealing with a few cases involving disturbing or sensitive information. We must be very careful not to be too paternalistic about that. As Members of Parliament with constituency problems we recounted in Committee cases in which we found ourselves acting as a kind of disclosure information channel—a sort of "named person".
We have to interpret a professional report with "confidential" marked on it, yet we know that that constituent, parent or social services case can never be solved unless we can transmit that professional information kindly and considerately to our constituent. We decided that the "named person" might be the way to deal with that. Since then, consideration by all the voluntary organisations and individuals concerned has concluded that the named person that we have integrated into the procedure would not be the right person to do it. We must determine this more carefully to see whether we can overcome it.
I maintain that we should establish a right to access of information and that we should allow a reasonable amount of professional discretion on how to handle a small number of difficult cases. That is what my amendment seeks to do. I also maintain that, if handled appropriately, it is always better for parents to have full information, even in the case of a terminal illness. I think that most parents would want to know if their child was critically ill or dying.
The confidentiality problem in such cases as critical illness, incest or marital instability is a matter for better practice earlier rather than secrecy later about a suspicion of problems in the family. That is why my amendment is carefully worded, so that the duty on the local education authority is that it shall, at the request of the parent, provide all the relevant information on which the proposed statement was made.
In practice that would mean that the parents were not necessarily presented with a stark written report, but it would allow the education authority the proviso of making the information or reports available in conjunction with discussions with professionals. In other words, I have tried to avoid the complete presentation of written evidence and reports and to allow for information leading up to the statement; but full information could be presented both orally, in discussion, and in the presentation of written evidence.
In Committee, when we discussed this matter, it was thought that the named person might be a solution where the information is sensitive. It is now considered that that would place the named person in an invidious and impossible position. It would be setting up a barrier


between the named person and the parents. That would jeopardise the purpose of the "named person" as a confidant and adviser to the parents.
I realise that professionals may feel that that places a weighty responsibility on them, but that surely is part of their professional training and practice, or it should be. They should be able, clearly, frankly and sensitively, to discuss issues with parents—as we have to do in dealing with our constituency cases.
Professional reluctance was the second concern expressed by the Government and was also discussed in Committee. If parents had access to reports, professionals would be reluctant to commit their opinions to paper. That is an important matter to which we must give full consideration. The danger seen by one or two colleagues and members of the Committee was that we could have two tiers of report—one for use between professionals and one to be shown to parents.
My first point is that there is no thought that private notes or aides-memoire—which are kept solely for the purposes of the individual professional—should be made available to parents.
My second point is that one of the main objections from parents and the voluntary organisations is that at present reports are often factually inaccurate and highly judgmental.
The American experience tends to suggest that access to reports produces better reports, that professionals must justify to themselves, as well as to parents, their statements in a report. My amendment should allay the fears of professionals if they know that they have the opportunity to discuss the report with parents rather than handing over a series of written background memoirs.
Informal access to reports was one matter that we wanted to clear up. The involvement of parents in all stages of discussion on a child's educational needs will include access to reports and discussions about the reports. That is not happening at the moment; that is why there is such strong support for the amendment from the voluntary organisations.
Legislation is not needed where good practice exists. For example, in some areas there is already close co-operation and good practice on referral of handicapped children from area health authorities to the education authorities, but there is a need to protect parents where such good practice does not exist. That we have done with the new clause. I repeat: we need to establish in the Bill the principle of access to information, while giving leeway to the local authority to decide the appropriate way in which to convey that information.
Access to information at the stage of the draft statement is likely to mean fewer appeals; otherwise parents may appeal out of ignorance about the evidence on which a statement was made. That, in turn, will result in considerable resource saving. I hope that my hon. Friend has taken that last phrase on board, because resources play an important part in the Bill and in the arguments that we have been outlining.
In Committee we were concerned to find a way to overcome the problem of the professionals and their internal reports and to overcome also the problem of sensitivity of certain types of information for parents. Allowing for the transmission of information building up

to a statement in the form of written reports and/or oral discussion—as hon. Members have to do—is the means of solving the problem.
My other amendment is consequential. Obviously, if parents are to have access to information they will need a longer period, but we have accepted what was said on earlier amendments and will stick with 15 days at this stage, although we shall probably want that extended if we agree that more information should be provided.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give the matter deep consideration. It is a thorny question which caused us a great deal of heart-searching and discussion in Committee. We are considering possibly ½per cent. of the wecases. If we can find the recipe that will allow transmission of this important information in that small number of cases, by written or oral evidence, I believe that we shall solve this thorny problem.

Mr. Whitehead: I follow that commendable and exhaustive speech by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) by saying that I think he has entered into a difficult part of the Bill—one that was seen by us all in Committeee to be one of acute difficulty. I should have preferred—I say this with no disrespect to the hon. Member for Exeter—the Under-Secretary to move an amendment today.
In Committe we reached what I thought was a consensus. Reservations were expressed, by myself among others, about the small minority of cases that were a limitation on the statement of the general right of access. I entirely endorse that right, and I think that the hon. Gentleman was right to move the amendment in the spirit that he did. I agree with my hon. Friends who have argued that the right of access is of paramount importance to the way in which parents and their children will regard the legislation and how their relationship with the professionals will be carried through the lifetime process of the preparation within our education system of children with special needs.
That said, I had hoped that the Under-Secretary would be able today to recognise that we reached a near consensus in Committee, that we saw that in the minority of cases there was a need for a special intermediary who would be able sensitively to handle information which—this is the one flaw in the amendment—must now be put over sometimes face to face, verbally, by the professionals who have compiled the report. I see no other way of interpreting the amendment. The reason why, in Committee, we considered the "named person" as the possible intermediary was that he would be in a position to handle the transmission of extremely delicate and sometimes embarrassing information in the most sensitive way.
It is not right to say that the voluntary agencies have all dismissed the notion of the named person. Some have, and I have had representations to that effect. However, others, such as the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, have written to us since the Committee stage saying that access to all professional reports might well be provided in this minority of circumstances through the named person. They hope that the Government will accept the proposal.
When we pressed the Under-Secretary in Committtee he said that he was aware of the Committee's concern. He did not spell out any possible amendment, but he said that he would reconsider the matter and see whether he could


veer it towards more provision of information, and the clue and the link in this matter could be the named person. He added that he could not go further than that now.
That is still the position. The hon. Gentleman has not gone further. He has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and the rest of the Committee to say that there are extreme difficulties in legislating on the issue. The hon. Gentleman said:
We cannot assume that all 'named persons' will necessarily be the best judges of what information should be communicated verbally, or that the relationships they have developed with parents will fit them to convey certain hard or disturbing facts or judgments.
That is also true, in certain circumstances, of the professionals who compile the report.
Let us look at the difficulty of the professional who draws up a report. We must find ways in which it can be made less subjective and less tendentious than is sometimes the case if reports are to remain in the closed circle of professional opinion and advice. We must also see how the professional can be helped in the provision of information that we believe the parents should have, knowing that sometimes an intermediary may be necessary, in a minority of cases. I accept the figure plucked out of the air by the hon. Member for Exeter, who said that we were talking about a small percentage—perhaps ½per cent.—of the cases concerned.
8.15 pm
I do not accept the view of the Under-Secretary in his letter to us that
perhaps benign neglect is the answer to this question",
and that, having gone over it over and over again, we shall find that our best course is for the Bill to be silent on the question of exposure of professional reports. I say that because I believe that if the Bill is silent on this matter there will grow up, whether we like it or not, a corpus of secrecy about some aspects of the statements and the way in which they have been derived. That is inevitable. It is inevitable in the process of professional assessment. Those of us in the Opposition who assert the general right of exposure consider that the benign neglect approach is likely to mean that over time parents will receive less information than they should otherwise have. They will probably receive the statement and some relevant information about it, but not all the facts upon which their judgment and their opinion should be canvassed.
What right of access is left if the Bill is silent on the matter? A general right of access is not stated. The professional is left not being made to submit to those most affected by a case the full range of opinion that he has brought to bear on it. My hon. Friends and I do not regard that as a satisfactory outcome to our discussion in Committee. It is the one example that I can think of in all our proceedings in Committee when a real attempt to talk our way through to a consensus—indeed, approaching that point of consensus by the conclusion of the debate on clause 7—has been frustrated by the Government's inability to come up with any legislative proposals. Therefore, I am inclined to support as the better of the two alternatives the amendment of the hon. Member for Exeter.
I should like to say a word about the amendment in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends—amendment No. 25. The point of that amendment is that there may not be fair and adequate testing of the minority of children that we discussed

earlier, children whose first language is not English, who are brought up in a multi-racial school and are tested and assessed according to the traditional methods employed in that school, which predate the onset of the multi-racial society. The best way of determining that that has not happened is for the parents concerned and those who advise them—if they are to go to the process of appeal, and so on, in the small amount of additional time that we now have—to know how the assessment was made.
I have discussed the matter with some of those teaching in multi-racial schools. Their reservation about the assessments used now is that almost all assessments for special educational need were devised by, and largely standardised in, white groups. They predate the multi-racial school of today and the number of children with learning difficulties that derive from not having English as a first language.
That means that the ethnic minority children whose mother tongue is not English are inevitably at a disadvantage, not only against those brought up on what I might call the "Janet and John" category of Ladybird books, but against all children who have grown up from birth in the English-speaking society, who are automatically better placed to answer the kind of simple questions that are rooted in that community and its collective experience, which form the basis of the test.
I understand that the main intelligence test used is one devised by Wechsler in the United States many years ago—the WISC test, containing a number of questions about family behaviour, personal behaviour and the society in which the child lives, which has little relevance to children from a multi-cultural non-English background. This might involve localised knowledge. For example, the child might be asked the distance from London to Edinburgh. Hon. Members might think that a simple question, but it is a bewildering one, unlikely to provide a fair assessment, for a child from a different culture with little or no experience of the relatives involved in the matter.
I commend to the House amendment No 25, which would give the parents concerned the right to know about the tools of analysis used in the assessment of their children, in particular the names of the tests, so that they would be able to check back and get the advice that they need about whether the form of assessment had been fair.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He asks that parents should have access to an area of considerable expertise. One cannot be certain that they would have the background to understand that to which access is sought for them. I wonder whether it is wise.

Mr. Whitehead: That is the voice of a professional guarding his precious store of professional knowledge. I defer to the hon. Gentleman's concern and wide experience. The essence of the case that I put is that in some circumstances it can be shown that the genesis of the tests predate the coming into our schools of large numbers of children from varied ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. If that is the case—it is the contention of many parents and those in the NAME organisation—we should be able to prove to the parents concerned that tests have been used which make a fair assessment of their child, taking account of the child's special background and problems. I commend to the House amendment No. 25 and also, on


balance, amendment No. 22 moved by the hon. Member for Exeter, since we have had a deafening silence from the Government.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) is correct in saying that hon. Members debating this matter in Committee came very near to a consensus. I have read the proceedings of the debate. I have paid special attention to the manner in which the debate ended. It is clear that hon. Members who began with somewhat disparate views drew together in trying to achieve a solution.
It is, however, unfair for the hon. Gentleman to say that the attempt to achieve a consensus has necessarily been disregarded or thrown away by what he describes as the Government's silence on the matter. We have examined the matter again. We have come to the judgment, rightly or wrongly—it is a matter of judgment—that this is not an area in which we could put forward any legislative change that would help the situation.
I shall not speak at length, because the matter was discussed thoroughly in Committee. Anyone reading that debate will agree that the real difficulty is that one is faced with two conflicting principles. On the one side there is the principle of the right of parents to know as much as possible about their child, and on the other there is the right to ensure that we do not inhibit those who have to make the reports from being frank and honest in those reports, in a way that might damage a child's interests. It is a difficult balance.
Everyone wants parents to have as much access as possible to information. In Committee hon. Members realised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter made clear today, that there are two difficulties. Sometimes there is information that the specialist may not be willing to include in the report if he knows that the report will be made public. Secondly, even if there is evidence of a sensitive nature that it is right parents should know, it is important to consider the circumstances in which the parent is given the information.
It is in an attempt to try to achieve what the Government believe is the right balance that the Bill is silent on the matter. Clause 7(3) requires that the parent should be given a copy of the statement. That statement will have to describe the need that has been identified and the educational provision that is to be made. It does not go on to say that the parent should, in all circumstances, have a right to all reports that have been made on the child.
The hon. Gentleman said that it appeared that the Special Standing Committee had come to a consensus. The consensus, or near consensus, was that if the information was to be given, the right person to give it was the named person. That was my impression. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said today that he now accepts that, for reasons that have emerged in further discussions, the named person is probably not the right person.
The hon. Member for Derby, North said that it would have to be some special intermediary. The difficulty lies in deciding the special intermediary, to be written into legislative terms. It is not the case that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Baroness Young, have not given considerable thought to

the matter. They have, but in the end we have found that it is difficult to come to a solution that we could recommend to the House.
If it is known by the professionals that information will be made available in all circumstances, will they be full and frank in what they say in the report? I do not see that that concern is diminished or removed by saying that information will be disclosed only to an intermediary, who will then decide whether to hand it on to the parents. If it is to be disclosed to an intermediary who then decides whether to tell the parent? The argument that that may inhibit what is originally put in the report applies just as strongly as if the information were made available direct to the parent.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said, it is not necessarily the case that the named person is the right and most appropriate person to make the judgment about what information should be handed on, or that he has the type of relationship with the parent that means that he is the most sensible person to hand on sensitive information.

Mr. Hannam: There appears to be some confusion here. We have passed the stage of arguing about whether certain information should be held back. We have accepted that all the information relating to something of importance to the future of a handicapped child, namely, the statement of his special educational needs, should be made available, and we are discussing how that could be done. We have accepted that professional reports find their way to intermediaries in all situations—either through a district health secretary or a Member of Parliament—and they have to decide how to transmit that information.
The question is not whether information should be withheld—we agree that at some stage the information must be given—but whether the cold, professional report written at an earlier stage should not be seen by the parent. Someone—not necessarily the named person, as we do not wish to legislate for that—should tell the parent that he has a right to have the matter explained.

Mr. Carlisle: I do not dispute what my hon. Friend says. The parent should have the opportunity to have all the matters explained. The best person to do that is probably the professional who made the assessment. I apologise if I have got it wrong. I thought that the hon. Member for Derby, North had said that he had carefully worded his amendment to meet the danger that if the report had to be disclosed certain things might be kept back. I thought that he said that he would not expect all aide memoires provided by the doctor to be disclosed to the parents. Is that aide memoir not part of the "relevant information" referred to in his amendment and on which the statement is made?
I do not wish to be thought critical. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has made a valiant attempt to reconcile those two principles. It is difficult to do so. In the end, having considered the matter in the light of the debate, we reached the view that benign silence was the best answer. Of course disclosures should be as full and as frank as possible. We should not in any way condone the unnecessary withholding of information that a parent requires for a better understanding of his child's special educational needs. If parents have to be informed of


matters of a delicate, painful or highly technical nature, the most appropriate way to do so is by a face-to-face interview.
We agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that the named person is not necessarily the right person to do that. We remain concerned that if the professionals—I think that my hon. Friend accepted this, although I might have misunderstood him—felt that there was to he direct access to all their written reports it might inhibit—

Mr. Hannam: The reason why I did not use the words "all evidence" in my amendment was to avoid the point being made by my right hon. and learned Friend. "All evidence" indicates to me all the documents, whereas "information" indicates a presentation of the evidence, but in some different form.

Mr. Carlisle: I had intended to conclude my remarks by suggesting further consideration of my hon. Friend's points. I do not think that there is a great difference between us. He has attempted to provide words that accept that not necessarily all evidence would have to be made available in all circumstances, but that there would be a degree of discretion in the information made available.
I give the undertaking that in the guidance notes local education authorities will be encouraged to be as frank as possible with parents. We are anxious to find a way to provide as much information as possible for parents, as required by the Bill, provided that it does not go so far as to be potentially damaging to the interests of the children.
I am prepared to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that before the Bill goes to another place we shall consider whether there is a form of words that will help to meet his case. I do not believe that the words contained in his amendment are acceptable. One possible approach would be to include a statutory right for a parent, on request, to have a face-to-face interview with the person who made the report. We shall give further consideration to these matters in the light of my hon. Friend's speech.

Mr. Wigley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the important possibility of incorporating the face-to-face element. If it is not possible to incorporate a legislative provision for a personal interview, as opposed to a cold piece of paper, will the face-to-face element be part of any guidelnes that are given to local authorities?

Mr. Carlisle: I can give that assurance. We shall try to cover this issue in any guidance that we give. I cannot say whether we shall be able to meet my hon. Friend's argument in statutory form, but, having listened to his speech, I am prepared to ascertain whether there is any way of accommodating him.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take on board also the arguments that I raised when speaking to amendment No. 25 and confirm that guidance will include the right of the parent to receive information about the methods of assessment and testing that have been used in respect of his child?

Mr. Carlisle: I should like to have the opportunity to give that further thought. We are dealing with a difficult area involving sensitive information. I do not want to answer the hon. Gentleman immediately, as I might not be able to justify the answer subsequently. We shall consider what he has said, as well as the speech of my hon. Friend.
I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that this has been a valuable debate and will not press the amendment in view of the nature of my reply.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I had hoped that we would have a more helpful reply from the Secretary of State. That was one of the reasons why I kept quiet. I realise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was trying to be helpful, but his answer was disappointing.
If we are to make any reality of the appeals procedure, it is fundamental that the appellant has all the information on which to base his appeal. How can someone be expected to conduct an appeal if all the information on which the case will be decided is not available to him? I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's experience in the courts will enable him to realise that he would find it impossible to argue a case in the courts if he knew that at the end of the day, after he had argued the case, a piece of information would be slipped to the judge that he would be unable to challenge.
The Minister has said that he will go as far as he can by way of administrative guidance. It is essential that on the face of the Bill we set out the clear duty to supply all the information. It is important that the professionals who make the assessment give as much information as possible, if not all the information, to the parents as they proceed. If they do so, few problems will arise. It must be the professional attitude from the start that the information will be disclosed and that those involved will take the trouble to offer an explanation so that the parent has the information and has it in a form that he can understand, taking into account any disabilities that he may have.
If that happens all the way through the assessment process, there will be few problems of disclosure of information when the actual statement is issued. The need for that sort of approach must be put into the Bill. Unfortunately, in my experience some of the professionals who are involved in assessments do not believe in that frankness as they go along. That may be because of pressure of time, or perhaps there are other reasons. However, they do not convey all the information. It is important to include that requirement in the Bill, because it changes attitudes and ensures that all the information is made available all along.
I plead with the Secretary of State to make sure that in another place an amendment is made to make it clear to all the professionals involved that the information must be conveyed if the appeals procedure is to mean anything at all. It may take the professionals a little longer to give the information, but I suspect that if they give it and it is understood there will be very few appeals, because the professionals will have been able to take the parents along with them. If they do that, they will save themselves a great deal of work and save the parents a great deal of heartache. That will certainly be the best thing for the child.

Mr. Field: I shall be brief, but I do not want the debate to end without stressing one matter. I am grateful for the undertaking that the Secretary of State has given. However, he seemed to misunderstand the position that we reached in Committee. That position is clear from what I said in Committee on 24 March, when I summarised the debate to the Under-Secretary:
I hope that we have reached the stage where the Minister will take the idea away and come back at a later stage to give a right


of access except in a few instances where the groups of professionals drawing up the report feel that it would be harmful for the family, including the children concerned.
In Committee we established a right of access for the vast majority of families to the reports that make up the statement. Part of the Secretary of State's misunderstanding is that we were arguing that all the information should be channelled through the named person. The point was put to the Under-Secretary:
I hope that we have not reached a situation in which the named person will be the funnel through which all information is passed",
to which the Under-Secretary replied
No".
At one stage in our proceedings, the Under-Secretary drew on his considerable experience of the Old Testament and said:
the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life".
The letter killeth that idea on 26 May, when he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock).
I hope that the Government will go away and look carefully at the views of the whole Committee concerning the right of access to the information, except in a few instances. In Committee we were concerned with what the trigger mechanism should be for that tiny minority of cases. At no point did any member of the Committee dispute that parents should have that right of access.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: With great respect, I do not know why the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is much difference between what he said and what I said. I apologise for misunderstanding about the named person. The hon. Gentleman said:
I hope that we have reached the stage where the Minister will take the idea away and come back at a later stage to give a right of access except in a few instances where the groups of professionals drawing up the report feel that it would be harmful for the family"—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 24 March 1981; c. 388.]
I thought that that is what I was saying. We welcome the widest possible provision of information, but we must accept the fact that there may be occasions when the professionals do not feel that they are in a position to give that information.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not accept that although he may make statements in the House and send out guidance, some professionals will look at what is written in the Bill? It is therefore important to put this statement of opinion into the legislation. I appreciate that it may be difficult to draft, but the presumption about giving information means that such a provision should be in the Bill rather than in guidance or in Hansard.

Mr. Whitehead: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to sum up. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) may withdraw the amendment, but I should point out that we shall be watching carefully to see what happens in another place as a result of what the Secretary of State has said. We are disappointed by the failure to make progress following our discussions in Committee.
We know that when we consider Lords amendments in the last week of the Session, when everyone will be rushing off to the Royal wedding or to whatever anti-Royal

wedding demonstrations he may be attending, the pressure on Government time will be great. However, as a result of amendments in another place, we hope that the Government will bring back a proposal containing a statement of the general right of access. That does not exist in the Bill at present and it could lead to a demand from certain people to know why they should comply with something that is simply exhortation and which does not lay a specific duty on any individual.
There are plenty of examples, such as the Children Act 1975, of particular individuals being given responsibilities in relation to a child and his treatment and assessment. I hope that the Government will look at this matter again in another place and come back with something better than we have seen today.

Mr. Hannam: Each time we have debated this subject we have moved a little further towards the ultimate objective, which is to achieve full access of information for parents. I very much welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's assurance that he will look at this matter further. I hope that the Government will produce an amendment in the other place. We have provided enough information and reading material to keep the Minister of State, Baroness Young, active for at least a week. I welcome the assurances given by my right hon. and learned Friend, and in view of them I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

REQUESTS FOR ASSESSMENTS

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 8, line 5 leave out '12' and insert '6'.—[Mr. Hannam.]

Clause 10

SPECIAL SCHOOLS AND APPROVED INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 8, line 13 leave out `children' and insert

'pupils with special educational needs'.—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 8, line 15 after the first 'schools', insert 'other than schools specially provided for patients attending a psychiatric hospital'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 31, in page 8, line 15, at end insert—
'(b) schools which are specially organised to make special educational provision for children attending a psychiatric hospital and which are for the time being approved by the Secretary of State as hospital special schools shall be known as hospital special schools. '

No. 33, in clause 11, page 8, line 38 after 'schools', insert 'or hospital special school'.

No. 34, in page 8, line 40 after 'school', insert 'or hospital special school'.

No. 39, in clause 13, page 10, line 2 after 'school', insert 'or hospital special school'.

No. 40, in page 10, line 5, after 'school', insert 'or hospital special school'.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 39 and 40 are consequential on the first two. The essential point with which they are concerned is the proposition that


there is an important difference between "special schools" in the generality of the Bill, and educational units attached to psychiatric hospitals that are classed as "special schools".
The reason for this important distinction is the reason why the children concerned find themselves in the "special school" of one of those two categories. In the generality of "special schools" the child finds himself there because of the characteristics of the school and his own needs. In the case of the "special school" attached to a psychiatric hospital, that is not the reason why the child is there. He is there because he needs to be in the hospital to which the school is attached. In other words, the child is in a "special school" attached to a psychiatric hospital for a medical reason for which he has been admitted to the hospital rather than an educational reason for which he has been admitted to the school.

Mr. Wigley: Would the hon. Member accept that it is not just in relation to psychiatric hospitals that that would be the case? It would also be the case in other hospitals where the child is accepted on a long-term basis and needs to be there to pursue his education.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have not denied that proposition. I am putting the lesser rather than the greater case. It is the one with which the Royal College of Psychiatrists is concerned.
A child goes to a hospital for medical treatment with the consent of his parents—a consent that can be withdrawn. That is essential to the relationship between doctor and patient in general, but in particular in psychiatric hospitals, and especially where disturbed children are involved. If for reasons which are not medical the relationship is destroyed, there may be unfortunate consequences. Some children who otherwise would have gone into the hospital for treatment which they need will not do so, because their parents will believe, rightly, that they cannot rely on being able to withdraw the child from the hospital if they judge that to be the best course.
It is not a necessary condition of going into a psychiatric hospital which has what is classed as a "special school" attached to it that the child will be subject to a statement under clause 7. On the other hand, the child may already be subject to a statement, or he may be made subject to a statement while in that hospital. The range of patients is extensive and the period of treatment may vary from a few days to a couple of years. This was recognised by Baroness Young in a lengthy letter which she wrote to me on the subject, in which she said:
The widely different circumstances and needs of children in hospital would also make it extremely difficult to arrive at any workable set of regulations which could be universally applicable.
Quite so. If that statement is correct, how much more correct must it be that no set of regulations, covering not only all "special schools attached to hospitals" but the generality of "special schools", can possibly be applicable?
My basic proposition is that to try to embrace within one legislative definition educational units which are termed as "special schools" and to which children are sent because they need the characteristics of that educational unit, and then to stretch the same regulations to cover a completely different situation is not only unnecessary and unreasonable, but is courting avoidable situations deleterious to the medical treatment of the child in the hospital.
In ministerial correspondence and in a ministerial meeting the case has been put that such units do not have to be classed as "special schools" anyway. In theory that may be true, but if they are not the alternative system makes no provision for paying specialist staff. In practice they have to fall within certain aspects of the "special school" classification, so that the special qualifications of the staff which are necessary to make such a unit run properly and to the greatest benefit of the children attending it can be properly remunerated.
The solution to this conundrum is embodied in the amendments that I have tabled. Amendment No. 31 provides another category, and I have adopted, as far as possible, the wording of the Minister's draftsman, except in so far as "hospital" has to be inserted:
"(b) schools which are specially organised to make special educational provision for children attending a psychiatric hospital and which are for the time being approved by the Secretary of State as hospital special schools shall be known as hospital special schools.".
This merely applies a suitable term to recognise a different situation.
There are other subsidiary differences. Some units cover a very large area. I can, naturally, speak with greatest knowledge of a unit located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). That hospital unit, a clinic for severely disturbed children, covers an area from the Isles of Scilly to Bristol, and includes the Channel Islands. To think in terms of local education authority multi-disciplinary teams in Cornwall, Bristol or the Channel Islands making quick decisions about children located 100 miles away is not to be au fait with the practicalities.
Inside the hospital school of that unit there is already a multi-disciplinary team which constantly assesses the children, whether they be passing through on a long-term or short-term basis. There is a doctor, an education psychologist, a social worker, a nurse, a local education authority teacher, an occupational therapist and a clinical psychologist. The social worker will be in contact both with the child's family and with the school he normally attends. The Minister will probably say that the child may remain on the role of the school which he attended before he went into the unit. So he may, but, on the other hand, he may not. He might have been excluded from that school because of personality problems, which could be one of the principal reasons why he went into the hospital for treatment.
9 pm
What is to be hoped is that, if possible, the child will be able to return to the school from which it has been excluded after the successful outcome of its treatment in hospital. What the hospital endeavours to do, both in the interests of the individual patients concerned and in the interests of other patients who need the facilities of the hospital, is to return the child to its home environment and its normal educational environment as soon as possible. That can literally be within a few days. On the other hand, it can be after a much longer period.
The assessment of the child patient in the hospital and the school is a continuing process. If the child is the subject of a statement, has been removed from the roll of the school that it used to attend, and is registered with the school attached to the hospital, the Bill says that it cannot just be discharged from the hospital on the basis of the assessment of the team in the hospital which possesses all


the skills of a team outside. In practice the child's discharge would have to wait until a team could be gathered together outside the hospital to duplicate the work that had already been done inside the school attached to the hospital.
Not only is that an extremely wasteful process of duplication; it is unnecessary and delaying. That is why experienced consultants in charge of such units, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has given some thought to the matter, do not wish those schools to be brought within the same formal classification as the "special schools", in the sense in which the term is used everywhere else in the Bill.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has put forward a valid argument, which I had not appreciated before. The term "hospital special school" may be interpreted by others outside as covering special schools at hospitals and psychiatric hospitals. There may be a problem. Is the hon. Gentleman's terminology right?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is important to have a separate category for those schools. The hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point. If that were my right hon. and learned Friend's only objection, the amendment could be accepted, and in another place another word could be inserted by amendment, or the Chair might allow a manuscript amendment—for example, "psychiatric hospital special school". That might be a point of substance, but it is not one on which I wish to consume the time of the House. Any such terminological amendment would be acceptable to me. I hope that it would be acceptable to my right hon. and learned Friend as well.
Without wishing to delay the House unduly, I am at some pains to remove some of the obfuscation that has needlessly crept into the prolonged discussion to date. I shall run through the arguments again so that my right hon. and learned Friend does not have to focus his attention on matters that are not relevant.
It is agreed that children who are not subject to a statement can be withdrawn from a "hospital special school" at the request of their parents. I hope that it is also agreed that children who are the subject of a clause 7 statement and are registered as being at that school, and not at any other, cannot be withdrawn from the hospital at the behest of the parents. I use the word "hospital" as shorthand. It is not practical, after a child is withdrawn from a hospital, for there to be a legal requirement for him to attend school there each day if it is 60 miles away from where he lives.
The Bill could place us in the ridiculous position of Shylock. My right hon. and learned Friend may say that nothing is stopping parents from withdrawing their child from the hospital. However, they are still under a statutory duty to see that he attends the school each day, which could be physically impossible because of the distance, unless and until the lengthy procedures in the Bill for removing registration are complete.
If a separate set of regulations is necessary, let us have them. My right hon. and learned Friend may say that separate regulations already apply to some schools, termed "special schools", attached to hospitals, but we are creating a new structure. It will be many years before we legislate on the matter again, so let us get it right. Instead of getting the structure wrong and having to repair the

damage with regulations, let us acknowledge in the main text of the Bill that we are dealing with two categorically different situations.
I shall not argue with my right hon. and learned Friend if he recognises that fact but finds my drafting unattractive. If he undertakes in another place to introduce amendments to the same effect, we shall not fall out. My objective is to secure a different legal status for schools attached to hospitals that fall within the "special school" nomenclature for staffing purposes, which is important, but also in terms of the children whom they take in who may have been in ordinary "special schools". It is for them that we must make provision. That is why I ask my right hon. and learned Friend either to accept the amendments or to introduce similar ones.
Finally, let me say that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Foukes) has consistently taken a great interest in the matter, and wished her name to be on the amendment. I thought that she was adding it, and she thought that I was, with the result that it does not appear.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. A serious event has occurred in Northern Ireland tonight. Eight men accused of murdering a policeman have blasted their way out of the Crumlin Road prison with guns. Will the Government make a statement tonight?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The authorities will take note. It is not a point of order and therefore not a matter for me. It is a very serious situation. I am sure that the Government spokesman will take note.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: As the only member of the Government present, may I say that there is a Whip on duty as well. He will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. I think that the hon. Gentleman may be assured that his message will be conveyed appropriately.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that statement.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said that he hoped that there were various matters on which we could agree. I think I can say with confidence that we agree on one thing: this is a complicated and technical matter. If, in my few words, I fail to persuade him that his amendments are not necessary, I assure him that it will not be because we have not attempted to examine the situation. Indeed, if at some stage he is able to provide additional information, I shall of course consider the matter again.
As I understand it, the effect and purpose of my hon. Friend's amendments would be to create a new and limited category of special schools, which would be known as hospital special schools, but which in practice would be limited to schools provided for those attending a psychiatric hospital or unit.
As my hon. Friend said, the purpose of his amendments is merely to disapply from those schools clause 10(2), which at present requires that
the parent of a child who is … a pupil at a special school in accordance with arrangements made by a local education authority shall not withdraw the child from that school without the consent of the local education authority".
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his speech on Second Reading, which I have had the opportunity to study. As he knows, over the past few days, at my request, an official from the Department has had fairly lengthy


telephone conversations with a constituent of my hon. Friend who is particularly concerned about this matter. I am even more grateful to my hon. Friend for substantially limiting his speech today to what I had understood to be the likely area of disagreement between us.
The first point that I had intended to make, which I realise we both now accept, was that the clause has no effect at all upon the admission, removal or withdrawal from a special school of a child who is not the subject of a statement under the Bill. Therefore, if a child is referred in the normal way from a general practitioner to a hospital and it is medically decided by the GP and the consultant that it would be appropriate for the child to go into hospital, perhaps for a short time, and to enter that school, as the child is not subject to a statement he is in no way affected by the clause and the parents are free to withdraw him as at present. The only circumstance in which a child could not be withdrawn from that special school without the consent of the local authority is, as my hon. Friend has said, when that child is registered as a pupil at that school in accordance with an arrangement that has been made by the local education authority.
The second provision on which my hon. Friend and I are agreed in principle—although we may disagree as to its validity in practice—is that if that child is the subject of a statement under clause 7 and the statement refers to a specific special school by name and the child is then, for medical reasons, removed from that special school and goes into the hospital and becomes a short-term patient in the special school of the hospital. The clause has no effect whatever unless that patient is also registered as a pupil on the roll of that hospital school and is removed as a pupil from the roll of the special school that he was attending.
9.15 pm
We believe, and would make it clear in what we said to local authorities, that, in practice, when a child is subject to a statement under the Bill and is on the roll of a special school, if that child is removed for a short stay to a psychiatric hospital, the local education authority would not take the child off the register of that special school to place him on the register of the special school in the hospital. Indeed, we would indicate to the local education authority that we would not expect it to do so.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I intervene only to ensure that no misunderstandings will arise. This statement does not refer only to the child being registered at a "special school"; it is at any school. I nention that because my right hon. and learned Friend referred to a "special school", and I thought he might have said something that he did not mean to import.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is right. I was taking the case where the educational provision provided under the statement was the registration of the child in a special school. My hon. Friend is right. The child might be the subject of a statement, but that statement may not say that he is a registered pupil at a special school. He may be educated somewhere else.
The only basis on which the clause, as I understand it and as I am advised, would require the consent of the local education authority before that child could be withdrawn from the special school in the hospital would be if that child were registered as a pupil at the special school in accordance with arrangements made by that local education authority. In other words, I agree with my hon.
Friend that, under the terms of the Bill, if that child were to be made the subject of a statement under clause 7 and the provision decided upon under that statement were to be education at a particular psychiatric hospital school, that child could not be properly withdrawn without the local education authority's consent.
Again, in practice, it is difficult to believe that that position would arise except in agreement with the consultant psychiatrist concerned and the local education authority. Therefore, again in practice I should have thought that the only effect of it would be to prevent a child from being withdrawn against the view of those concerned with his psychiatric health, rather than preventing the discharge by the psychiatrist of the child from that hospital.
We now agree that the impact of the provision is in only that limited area. It does not change the existing law in any way. In the Education Act 1944 the words had exactly the same effect as in the Bill. Section 38(2) says:
A child who has under arrangements made by a local education authority become a registered pupil at a special school"—
that definition of special school includes a special school in a hospital, to which my hon. Friend referred—
shall not be withdrawn from the school without the consent of that authority.
Therefore, if a child is in a special school, including a hospital special school, as a result of arrangements made by a local authority and is a registered pupil at that school, he cannot be discharged without the consent of the local authority.
The Bill does not change the law. My hon. Friend is possibly saying that the law has always been wrong. As I understand it, during the years that that law has been in force there has been no pressure to suggest that it is not working satisfactorily. For perfectly good and genuine reasons, while recognising his concern and accepting that the psychiatrist to whom my officials have spoken is not convinced of the argument that I am advancing, I believe that my hon. Friend is mistaken in believing that this has a major effect.
The other point that my hon. Friend made was about the regulations. At the moment, any special school in a psychiatric hospital is a special school within the terms of the 1944 Act and is subject to regulations. One set of regulations covers all special schools, that is the Handicapped Pupils and Special School Regulations 1959. I agree that my hon. Friend may say that it is putting on regulations and taking them off. Those regulations conclude that if a special school is in a hospital—that is any type of hospital—the regulations shall apply to it with such modifications as are required to meet the conditions appertaining to that hospital. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that any regulations made under the Bill would have to be new regulations and would need a similar proviso to ensure that they could be modified to meet the different conditions that arise in a special hospital from those that arise in an ordinary special school.
What my hon. Friend is asking for is not necessary, because of the limited effect which he says the Bill would have on children in particular circumstances. I believe that that is repeating the legal situation which has been current since 1944 and, as far as we know, has worked accurately.
If my hon. Friend is still not satified with my explanation, and if there is evidence of which the Department is not aware that the provisions in the law have


been working unsatisfactorily for many years, we should consider any representations that my hon. Friend might wish to make. I do not see that my hon. Friend's fears are justified and that in future the discharge of a child in the circumstances that he has described would be delayed because of the need to have a multi-disciplinary inquiry by a local education authority team when the wording has existed since 1944.
I have no doubt that in practice the local authority will act on the advice of the psychiatrist in charge of the hospital that the child attends. I should have thought that in practice that was inevitable. I have considered the matter as carefully as possible and I have looked closely at the various Acts. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to accept my explanation.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for having looked at the matter carefully. However, he has not given us any news. If he scratches his memory he will recollect that I said that at present different regulations applied to schools attached to hospitals. My argument was that the existence of a different set of regulations recognises that it is anomalous to try to bring both types of "special schools" within the same regulations. My point of substance was that this should be recognised overtly in the Bill's text instead of pretending that they are all the same in the Bill and having to make a differentiation in the regulations.
My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that the problem had been overcome in the past—I believe, clumsily—by making a separate set of regulations for schools attached to hospitals. In pointing that out he has granted the case for the amendment. He has acknowledged that such schools are in a different category and that they cannot be covered by the same regulations. Indeed, that is why they are not covered by the same regulations. Let us get things right this time. After all, our legislation will have effect for many years.
To date, the regulations have been ignored. Consultants have discharged patients who, under the regulations, should not have been discharged. In many walks of life people suddenly realise that there are extant regulations of which they had been unaware and which had not, therefore, been enforced. Once official note is taken of them, a different situation arises. From then on it is necessary to get the situation under control.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree, on reflection, that instead of maintaining a text that pretends that "special schools" attached to psychiatric hospitals fall into the same legislative category as those that do not, that should be acknowledged openly in the Bill's text.
There is another reason why that should be so. Local education authority officials are not usually lawyers. They know Acts better than the fine print of regulations. If the Act makes the distinction clear, it will be more likely to generate the required attitude among those officials than if the substance of the Act pretends that two different things are the same. Local education officials would not then have to fudge the regulations—which they may not be aware of, or may not enforce—in order to get out of a false assumption embodied in the primary enabling Act.
Therefore, I again ask my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider the matter to see whether he does not agree

that it is time that we got it right in the principal measure, the Bill, rather than once again having to fight to get it right in the subsequent regulations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Is the hon. Gentleman seeking leave to withdraw the amendment?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am waiting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for a response from my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Secretary of State has spoken once.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I should point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have spoken at great length. I take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 11

APPROVAL OF SPECIAL SCHOOLS

Mr. Hannam: I beg to move amendment No 35, in page 9, line 20 at end insert—
'(5) Provision shall be made in the regulations to secure that—
(a) the composition of the governing bodies of non-maintained special schools shall conform, as far as is practicable, to the requirements of subsections 6,7 and 8 of section 2 of the Education Act 1980;
(b) each non-maintained special school shall have its own and separate governing body'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 36, in page 9, line 20 at end insert—
'(5) Provision shall be made in the regulations to secure that, so far as practicable, it shall be a condition of approval as aforesaid that the like particulars to those provided for under section 8 of the Education Act 1980 shall be published for each school year by the like bodies or such persons as the Secretary of State may nominate.
(6) Section 9(2) of the Education Act 1980 is hereby repealed'.
No. 38, in page 9, line 42 at end insert—
'(5) Provision shall be made in the regulations to secure that, as far as practicable, it shall be a condition of approval as aforesaid that the like particulars to those provided for under section 8 of the Education Act 1980 shall be published for each school year by the proprietor or such persons as the Secretary of State may nominate'.

Mr. Hannam: These are probing amendments to allow my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to implement undertakings that he gave after the Committee discussions on the governing bodies of non-maintained special schools and on the information provided to parents of children attending the special and independent schools in the non-maintained sector.
Amendment No. 35 seeks to establish an important point of principle and to ensure adequate protection of children attending non-maintained special schools. We have 112 non-maintained special schools in England and Wales, catering for 82 per cent. of all blind children, 45 per cent. of all deaf children, and 32 per cent. of all handicapped children attending residential special schools. Therefore, we are talking about a very important category.
The schools are almost entirely dependent upon public funds, yet, as the law stands, they are virtually autonomous and they may select their own governing bodies according to their trust deeds and the 1959


regulations. A number of them have no parent-governors, and under present regulations teachers are not allowed to be governors. Not all even have local authority representative governors. The amendment seeks to bring them into line with special schools in the maintained sector.
The second part of the amendment would implement the Warnock report recommendation that each special school should have a single governing body. At present, the wording of the Handicapped Pupils and Special Schools Regulations 1959 is such that the governing body of a charity is deemed to be the governing body of each school that it administers. That means that in principle the number of schools that can be governed by one central body is unlimited. That is unsatisfactory.
Without a governing body there is no protection for children faced with expulsion or suspension, and there is no machinery to ensure that changes in the school not covered by the regulations are consistent with the needs of its pupils, many of whom are placed there and paid for by the local authorities.
In the special and independent school sector handicapped children must be offered the same protection as children at ordinary schools—a point that was made in debates last year on what became the Education Act 1980. The amendment suggests the line on which the principle can be established for non-maintained special schools.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 38 deal with the provision of information to parents whose children are attending, or are about to attend, special schools and independent schools that seek approval from the Secretary of State to take in children with special educational needs. The provision of such information should be a condition of his approval.
The amendments seek to bring special and independent schools as far as possible into line with the requirement on public sector schools to provide information under section 8 of the Education Act 1980.
These are probing amendments to allow my hon. Friend to make a statement about the methods that the Government intend to use to ensure that our special and independent schools apply the same rules as the maintained sector.
My hon. Friend undertook to ensure that parents and teachers were appointed to the governing bodies and that proper information was provided. That explains why amendments have been tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I hope that the Minister will be able to give details of how regulations or some other method will ensure that the undertakings are carried out.

Mr. Greenway: If the Bill is about anything, it is about parity of esteem between children with special educational needs and ordinary children. We want the same principles applied to schools that are separate and cater only for children with special educational needs as apply to all others. It is not only right from the children's point of view that this should happen; it is also right from the professional teachers' point of view. Why should teachers serve on governing bodies in one sector of schools but not serve on governing bodies in another sector? That cannot be right.
Where there are no teachers on a governing body, that governing body, in my view and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), is a less informed, less resilient and less useful body. For practical and

professional reasons it is desirable that teachers and also parents should serve on the governing bodies of these schools. They have a separate and different contribution to make. It is important that they should be able to make it.
I have a school in my constituency that falls into the category that we are discussing. The school has a certain difficulty. The parents have no direct channel through another parent to communicate with the governing body. This is a deficiency within the school's organisation from which the parents are suffering. The amendment would remedy the situation.
The parents of children attending these schools are surely entitled to the sort of information that has been mentioned. It is laid down that this information is to be published within other schools. It is a matter of parity of esteem that similar provision should be made for the 112 schools that have been mentioned. I support my hon. Friend's case.

Dr. Boyson: There will be full sympathy in the House for the amendment. The question that arises is whether the course proposed is correct. There are other ways of doing things. I am aware that Opposition Members are not so flexible in their attitude as are Conservative Members. They do not possess sufficiently versatile minds to think of alternatives in life. Their approach is doctrinaire and one-track. I must not be misled—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Why does not the hon. Gentleman say "Yes" and sit down?

Dr. Boyson: When the hon. Gentleman, who speaks on every amendment, proposes that I should adopt the approach of a Trappist monk, it represents a sudden change of attitude.
The 1980 Act made it clear that the Government believe that parents and teachers should sit on each governing body and that there should be LEA representation wherever possible when local authorities take up places in independent and non-maintained schools. The whole issue is concerned with considering how this can be made possible. Clause 11(2) says:
Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, regulations under that subsection may impose requirements which call for arrangements to be approved by the Secretary of State".
That relates to non-maintained schools. Clause 12(3), which relates to independent schools to which local authorities send children, states:
Any consent under section 10(3)(b) may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State sees fit to impose.
One knows the difficulties of the various bodies that run non-maintained schools. The important thing is to achieve representation while allowing for the fact that the schools have different constitutions. One can make a condition of local education authorities being allowed to send children to non-maintained schools and independent schools the presence of teachers and parents on the governing body Where that is impracticable, we must meet that problem in the way that we met a similar problem last year with hospital special schools—that is, by some other representation that will speak on behalf of parents and teachers.
I assure my hon. Friends that in the conditions under which local education authorities are allowed to send children to independent and non-maintained schools,


provision will be made that wherever practicable—or, if impracticable, by other means—there must be teacher and parent representation at the schools.
Schools will be required to provide information to parents. Only two or three weeks ago we enjoyed a debate about provision of information when we discussed a prayer tabled by the Opposition. Local education authorities will be required to provide information about the schools available in their areas. Similarly, individual schools must provide information about their courses and internal arrangements. In the conditions under which local education authorities can send children to independent and non-maintained schools, the Secretary of State will specify that information similar to that provided by maintained schools must be provided by the non-maintained and special schools.
I can give a categoric assurance to my hon. Friends that the points raised in the amendments will be covered by the conditions under which local education authorities are allowed to send children to non-maintained and special schools.

Mr. Hannam: In view of the advice given by my hon. Friend the Minister and his assurance that the regulations will be amended to comply with the undertakings that have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made:

No. 42, in page 17, line 9, leave out
formed the opinion, following an assessment
and insert
made an assessment of his educational needs under section 5 and to have formed the opinion"—[Dr. Boyson.]

Schedule 3

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made:

No. 43, in page 18, line 2, at end insert—
"Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12)
1A. In section 10(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (vagrants preventing children from receiving education) after the word "aptitude" there are inserted the words "and to any special educational needs he may have".".
No. 44, in page 19, line 27, at end insert—
"Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65)
9A. In section 23(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (local education authorities not to discriminate in exercising functions under Education Acts), as amended by section 33(1) of the Education Act 1980, for the words "the Education Acts 1944 to 1980" there are substituted the words "the Education Acts 1944 to 1981".
Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74)
9B In section 18(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 (local education authorities not to discriminate in exercising functions under Education Acts), as amended by section 33(1) of the Education Act 1980, for the words "the Education Acts 1944 to 1980" there are substituted the words "the Education Acts 1944 to 1981"."—[Dr. Boyson.]

Schedule 4

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 45, in page 21, line 21, column 3, at end insert "section 33(1)"—[Dr. Boyson.]

Dr. Boyson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is some time since the Second Reading debate. We may deal more rapidly with the Third Reading, especially in view of the speed with which we dealt with the last few amendments on Report. I shall watch the clock.
Following the Warnock report, we introduced the Bill to establish a legal framework through which we could help public opinion to accept that, wherever possible, children with special needs should be integrated into normal schools with normal curricula. We wished to extend the definition of children with special educational needs to cover not only the specific and obvious categories, but many others both inside and outside normal schools. We have done that.
We have abolished the 10 separate categories of handicap and replaced them with a system of pupil profiles, thereby extending the provision for special educational needs to many children in ordinary schools. We have involved parents much more in the education of their children. They have to be approached before a statement is made. They may complain about the draft statement. They may see the statement being made. They may attend all the examinations. They can appeal to the Secretary of State if they do not wish their children to go to certain schools. Parents are shown to be vital partners in the education process. We have done in the Bill what we did in the 1980 Act and we have similarly involved parents.
The Warnock committee was established by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science. The committee reported in May 1978. The Government issued the White Paper in 1980 and the Bill will go to another place after what I presume will be a successful Third Reading. There are those who say that we need more resources, but if we wait for resources we shall do nothing.
On 5 December Mary Warnock wrote in The Times Educational Supplement:
It is far better to build optimistically on those changes, even within a highly constricted Budget, than to sit around with folded hands, moaning.
The Deputy Chairman, George Cooke, wrote in Education on 24 April that he agreed broadly with Mary Warnock that the Bill went as far as possible on legislation. The Advisory Centre for Education stated:
We welcome the Paper's echo of the Warnock report's recommendation that the existing form of categorisation of handicapped students should be replaced by the more flexible concept of special educational needs.
I commend the Bill to the House. We have established a framework. We trust that more resources will be available in future and that we shall be able to go further with the proper education of children with special educational needs. I refer not just to those with extreme needs, but to the broad sector.

Mr. Kinnock: This is the second Bill to pass through the House—I am especially pleased to say this in the presence of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)—under the hybrid procedure. Anyone who was a member of the Special Standing Committee or who attended as an observer will testify to its unmitigated success. It was a great improvement on the way in which


we address ourselves to matters which are not of great contention but which require the consideration of complex arguments as we seek to improve the law. I am not giving those of us who were members of the Committee a pat on the back. I am endorsing the proposition that the procedure should continue and flourish. It should be used as extensively as possible for Bills of this sort.
We were assisted by the mass of detailed and well-argued information that came from outside the House from many bodies, including the teachers' trade unions, various voluntary organisations and professional bodies that counselled us, provided us with information and generally advised us. I am not patting us on the back. I am merely saying that much of our consideration in Committee was rather better informed than is sometimes the case when dealing with complex issues.
It is appropriate on Third Reading once again to record our debt of gratitude to Mrs. Mary Warnock and the members of her committee not only for the work that they did but for that which they have instigated by the force of their argument and analysis. I refer to the legislative provision that has resulted and the provision of a bible of information and a number of proposals on which we can continue to build.
Having said that, I regret to say that our worries remain. Our first worry is that the Bill is a 2 per cent. Bill and not a 20 per cent. Bill. We are willing to give it a fair wind, but we feel that it should provide at least circumstantial, if not forensic, evidence to support the view that there are severe inhibitions in making proper provision for the 20 per cent. of children who, in Mrs. Warnock's estimate, will have special education needs at various periods of their scholastic lives.
My attention is always drawn to the problems attached to the definition of learning difficulty in clause 1, which we still believe is inadequate. The matter was the subject of lengthy deliberation in Committee.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said today, under clause 1(2) it will still be possible to misinterpret a difficulty in mobility in gaining access to a normal school as a learning difficulty, when actually it is a difficulty of attending a place of learning, not the difficulty in the accumulation of knowledge, as may happen with children with various intellectual afflictions.
We believe that the Bill is weakened because the possibility still exists of the prejudicial use of clause 2(3) (c) by people who are not well disposed to the development, improvement and integration of children with special learning needs into normal schools. We believe that the phrase
the efficient use of resources
can be used as an alibi for inactivity either by the complacent or, in even more miserable circumstances, by the willing who are simply denying the proper resources which they need effectively to proceed with the integration of children with special learning needs and with the expansion, extension and improvement of facilities to meet the needs of the 20 per cent. of children of any generation who have those learning needs.
Probably the most serious criticism—especially as our debate has taken place against the background of the Warnock report—is of the Government's failure, for reasons which, after many hours of argument, we still cannot accept to take effective action on the three areas of first priority in the Warnock report. There is no

development of provision for children under 5 with special education needs. That kind of development is not simply a matter of change of attitude, about which the Minister has spoken on Third Reading. It is a matter of providing resources to meet the needs of children under 5 and of their families.
The Government have made no serious effort to develop the legislative framework or to provide the necessary resources for Mrs. Warnock's second area of first priority—young people over 16 with special needs. Again that is mainly because of the Government's refusal to provide the necessary additional resources to bring about improvement.
There is also the matter that Mrs. Warnock considers the most serious, indeed, crucial, for the development of special education—the improvement of teacher training with reference to special education. The Bill makes no such provision, although we accept that it may be difficult to legislate for such a matter. There is no emphasis in any other Government statement or circular, or promise of any statutory instrument, which would significantly change the curriculum to encourage and improve teaching in special education as part of normal studies in teacher training.
Overshadowing even the advantageous parts of the Bill where provision is improved, where the statutory requirements are more progressive and where the definitions are updated, is the failure to provide new resources. That is the Bill's greatest deficiency, which will remain unless and until we can secure those additional resources.
I could go on at considerable length, but I have no intention of doing so, because the most articulate and effective criticism of the Government's deficiency in this regard has come from Mrs. Warnock herself.
The Under-Secretary concluded his remarks by referring to the views of the Advisory Centre for Education. ACE also said that the White Paper that preceded the Bill should be criticised for the absence of
an unequivocal commitment to integrated education as a right", and that
Government policy … along the lines of the White Paper will lead to a degree of international humiliation for Britain at the start of the International Year of Disabled People'".
That is a different picture from the one painted by the Minister, but, sadly, the Bill is considerably less progressive in its provision than even we were led to expect by the White Paper.
I have no wish to misrepresent Mrs. Warnock. She is a distinguished lady and we owe her a considerable debt. I have no wish to use her remarks in a political cockpit, as she has repeatedly made it obvious that she abhors the partisan exchanges that sometimes affect our debates on education.
Mrs. Warnock recognises that that is inevitable, but she does not like it. Therefore, without indulging in mud-slinging, and without attempting to be partisan, I ask the Minister and Conservative Back Benchers to understand that I use Mrs. Warnock's words to make a plea for the development and improvement of education so that it meets special needs.
In her column in The Times Educational Supplement on 13 March Mrs. Warnock said:
I said in evidence to the Standing Committee, (and I am prepared to go on saying this till I lose my voice), that 'without some special fundings, the 1981 Education Bill will not only do no good; it will do positive harm. More important, I believe that


without specific grants for teacher training our whole educational provision, not only that for children with special needs, will fairly soon be seen to be hopelessly ineffective and inadequate.
If the present Government is prepared to say that £3 million (what is being spent on the Assisted Places Scheme) is chicken-feed, then they can find as much chicken-feed again, for a different lot of chickens. Three million would come in extremely handy for funding a limited short-term pilot project of inservice training in schools, for the teaching of children with special needs; or indeed for some other teacher training project."
I shall not elaborate on Mrs. Warnock's words. They represent the most articulate testimony of the weaknesses of the Bill, much as we welcome and accept some of its provisions. I hope that the Government will have the common sense and common humanity to change their economic policy in time to make the Bill an effective and active policy instead of just a framework that is dependent upon the whims and fortunes of various local authorities.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I echo some of the mixed feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). Most of us who served on the Committee find the new procedure of taking evidence helpful. We also found the Government's attitude worth while and encouraging. Not only did they make some concessions in Committee, but they have promised that further improvements will be made in the House of Lords.
Despite that background we have a deep dissatisfaction, because the Bill will make things worse rather than better. We have to look back to what happened in the 1970s and the way in which discontent and dissatisfaction with special education developed. The concern that we have perhaps got the principle wrong and should not be separating—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That at this day's sitting, the Education Bill and the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Cope.]

Education Bill

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Bennett: There was dissatisfaction in the 1970s. It was felt that we should not segregate and categorise children into different types of special education, but should look much more to the principle of integration. Coupled with the discontent about the principle was a concern about resources. Pressure built up for something to be done. As so often happens, the Government decided to avoid taking action and set up the Warnock committee to inquire into the whole question. We then had a period of four years during which information and evidence were collected. Then we had the report, with further debate developing. As a result, we have a disappointing measure. Although it sets up the legal framework, it does nothing to provide the resources that are so necessary to implement the Warnock report.
The situation is even worse. Not only are the resources not being supplied, but by setting up the legal framework we are pre-empting some of the resources that exist.

Unless the Government use more resources the inspectorate will find it impossible to continue to do the tasks that it now performs as well as those that will be imposed by the Bill.
Most local authorities feel that their resources for special education are stretched to the limit, yet they are having imposed on them a legal framework that will take more resources to carry out. Unless they are given extra resources they will have to reduce the amount of effort that can go into the provision of special education services. Therefore, there has been a deterioration.
The only way to get round it is for the Government to commit more resources. In this year the disadvantaged child who needs special education has a right to a fair allocation of resources. These children are not receiving a fair allocation. The Bill will do nothing to help. It might well make things worse. We need a measure that will give the resources to do the job properly.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: I start my brief comments with a reference to points made by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). They talked about the special procedures that have led to the Bill's being given a Third Reading. This is only the second Bill that has been subject to the Special Standing Committee procedure. I shall give figures to prove my case that, contrary to what both hon. Gentlemen said, as the procedures were manipulated the new procedure was an almost unmitigated disaster. One of the most important innovations of the House was to enable the taking of outside evidence of technical people at the Select Committee stage. The experience on our Committee has put the whole procedure back a long way.
I have given notice in the ordinary way of debate to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) that I would make a personal reference. He was Chairman of the Special Standing Committee. In looking at the proceedings of that Committee I have eliminated all procedural questions, such as the name of the witness and so on, which are normally put by a Chairman. If these are eliminated, 196 questions were asked. Of those 196, 42 were asked by the Chairman and 81 by Labour Members. So of the 196 questions, 123 were asked by Labour Members. I have all the figures broken down for the remainder because, although I have many inadequacies, I tend to do my homework.
The truth of the matter is that a procedure that might very well have contributed greatly to the Third Reading, to which, of course, I am directing my remarks, has been perverted. The lesson that we have to learn is that it will not do to have a highly political Chairman of a Special Standing Committee. In future the Chair must be entrusted to one of the panel of Chairmen if this procedure is to be effective.
Contrary to what the hon. Members for Bedwellty and Stockport, North said—I sat there, and at times intervened—I can remember occasions when Conservative Members of the Special Standing Committee had to demand of the Chairman that they be heard. I believe that grave damage has been done to an innovation that might otherwise have been of the greatest importance to Parliament as a whole.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van


Straubenzee) is making the most grave allegations against one of my hon. Friends. He is doing it in the House, which is appropriate, but I suggest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he is not doing it in the most appropriate form, and that he is not producing evidence that can be accepted as authentic or that is in the style of the House.
As it is important that we should be able to subject to cross-questioning what the hon. Gentleman says, the way in which he says it, and his reasons for saying it, I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Third Reading of a Bill is not the. most appropriate time at which to conduct such an investigation. The hon. Gentleman has the perfect recourse in reference to Committees of the House if he has complaints of this nature to make against my hon. Friend. Further, if he has complaints of this nature, why has he waited for three months to make them in this fashion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member has to make his own decisions as to what he says in the Chamber. I heard the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) say that he had given notice to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) that he would refer to him. I have heard nothing that is out of order, but we should not dwell too much on the Special Standing Committee procedure; we should get on to the substance of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not customary when criticising the Chair, whether in Standing Committee, in Select Committee or on the Floor of the House, to do so by motion rather than by this sort of attack in the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is customary, but we have been dealing with a new procedure, and—

Mr. Kinnock: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that we should get on to the substance of the Bill.

Mr. Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in response to it, it is because of the novelty of the procedure that we are anxious not to diminish or devalue it by having attacks on the integrity of the Chairman, on Third Reading, well after the proceedings to which the hon. Member for Wokingham is referring, when there are several alternative methods of raising the matter in a more appropriate form.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: ; Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that the new Special Standing Committee procedure is a little different, but not altogether different, from the Select Committee procedure set up some years ago principally to deal with public accounts. There has been a development over several years. Select Committees did not exist at one time, but they have been growing like Topsy.
Some time ago I questioned whether it was proper for an investigation to be made into the secondary banks' lifeboat scheme—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with the Third Reading of the Education Bill. Therefore, we must confine our remarks to that Bill and not to any other matter.

Mr. Skinner: I am trying to show the House that on that occasion I called for an investigation and suggested that the Chairman of that Committee, the right hon.

Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), was not a fit person to chair the investigation as he had been involved as chairman of the Keyser Ullmann bank, which had received moneys from the lifeboat scheme. That resulted in an exchange of letters over the weekend, in which Mr. Speaker directed that the right hon. Gentleman should have the right to stand up in the House and put his point of view. That was the view of Mr. Speaker about two years ago. I believe that the attack that is now being made on my hon. Friend could be construed as being in the same vein. Therefore, it would be right and proper for my hon. Friend to have the right to respond. If you check the records, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will see that there is a parallel between the two cases.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) were present he would have the right to respond. Let us leave the matter there. This is not a debate on procedure.

Mr. van Straubenzee: As you wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply responding to two speeches which said that the new procedure had been a great success. I have buttressed my argument with figures. I shall leave the matter there, except to say that the Chair concerned was taken for only three sittings. Therefore, there were no other opportunities on which the matter could be raised. I am sorry that this has happened.
Eleven years ago I piloted through the House what I think could be called the predecessor to the Bill, although it was infinitely more modest. It is important to put on the statute book the changes in the law—the skeleton upon which policy can be based later. It is important to do that, because it is difficult for this House and the other place to find the time in which to pass such legislation.
Most hon. Members would wish to devote greater resources to the implementation of the Bill. I thought that by far the most effective technical expert who gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee was Mr. Stanley Segal, who has spent a lifetime in this work. He was at pains to make it clear that of course he had ambitions and other things that he would prefer to do, that of course he had targets that he wanted to meet, but his advice to the Committee was most emphatic. It was an important step forward, and it was one which the House would be wise to take.
I believe that it will take time under any Government, because resources will be limited, to implement the flesh around the bones of what we now enact. However, that does not make the bones any less important.
I hope that we shall speed the Bill on its way to another place and that in due course we shall see its increasing implementation, to the greater good of the young people and children about whom the whole House is concerned in the wording of the Bill to which we now give a Third Reading.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) surprised and dismayed hon. Members by intruding into our serious discussion on the principles of the Bill his criticisms of the Chair in Committee. I shall not further that discussion, except to say that the experts and members of the voluntary organisations who gave evidence have every reason to be glad of the opportunity. Many will look back with pleasure on the fact that the


House of Commons, for only the second time, afforded those who knew a great deal more than hon. Members about the matters contained in the Bill an opportunity to air their views. Consideration of the Bill has benefited greatly.
The Bill is based on principles with which we all agree, but there are dangers, first, of false expectations. Parents may believe that integration is possible for their children, when lack of resources may not permit it. There is also the danger that intergration without resources will be attempted in cases where it does not work and that children will be admitted to schools in which staffing requirements or physical changes on which to base integration have not been made because of lack of resources.
A local authority that tries to pioneer the provision of such resources without waiting for central provision may find itself locked in combat with the Secretary of State for the Environment because it has exceeded the increasingly detailed spending limits that he seeks to set on every aspect of local government expenditure. I criticise not only the Government's inability to release additional resources, but the whole apparatus of local government as it is being changed and developed. A local authority that sets out to meet those targets is likely to fall foul of the Government's determination to control and limit every detail of local government expenditure.
It would be tragic if, in the International Year of Disabled People, the major contribution that we seek to make were to be frustrated in that way. No one would resist the enshrinement in law of the principles in the Bill or deny the possibility of improving such things as parents' rights, but we are bound to be concerned that expectations may have been created that will not be satisfied.

Mr. Greenway: I welcome the Bill, but I put down a marker. It is easy to be carried away and not to realise that it requires tremendous changes in attitude from parents, teachers and pupils.
School life will have to change. Pupils will have to receive among them a new kind of pupil—the disabled or those with special difficulties. From my own experience I know that it can be done, but not without effort. Able pupils will have to accommodate the less able, and less able pupils will have to learn to work with those more able and even less able than they are.
Teachers will have problems to get groups of children of varied physical attributes to work happily together in class and outside. Teachers ask me to explain that it is not easy to leave children to play together where some have special educational needs or other handicaps and may be undermined by the others. It will be a job to establish the right attitudes and to avoid bullying. The House must recognise that, even though the teaching profession welcomes the job given to it in this bold Bill.
Mrs. Warnock is quoted as speaking against the Bill. I heard her say that she welcomed the Bill. She thought it remarkable that the work that she had led was going into legislation so quickly, and she was impressed and delighted. Although she had not achieved all that she set out to achieve, she had achieved quite a lot. She welcomed the Bill. I have heard her speak about the Bill many times, but I have never heard any kind of miserable denunciation from her.
One must also point out, not meanly, but as a fact, that the Labour Government had the opportunity to implement the Warnock report but did nothing about it. It therefore does not come well from Labour Members to say that we have not done enough. We have done something where they did nothing.
As I said in my earlier short speech, the Bill is about parity of esteem between all children and ultimately throughout society. I believe that the Bill will take us along that important social road. At times it is a difficult educational road, but I believe that the schools and all connected with them will welcome it and that parents will support the legislation as it is implemented. I believe that the Bill will benefit our country and society at large. I warmly welcome it.

Mr. Whitehead: It would have been more appropriate if the Opposition could have said as our final word on the Bill in this place that we wish it a fair wind, that we thank Mrs. Warnock and her committee and endorse the work done by many people, including those who drafted the Bill and brought it to this stage, and that we expect it to come back with even more improvements from the House of Lords.
I must, however, take this opportunity to reply briefly to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), because I feel a sense of personal affront in two ways. First, I was a member of the Special Standing Committee. Secondly, I was a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, of which one other member is present, which made the recommendation that led to the procedure being used.
It would be absolutely wrong if the impression were left on Third Reading of the Bill that the three sittings at which we heard the witnesses and the various lobbies that came forward were other than comprehensive, constructive and extremely useful. I believe that those sittings improved the Bill by setting a context in which the Committee could think and argue as a Committee. Time after time today hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to that. After hearing the witnesses and the discussion, and certainly after the further discussion that the Opposition had with some 70 of the lobbies, we were able to see the problem posed by the Bill in the round.
A personal attack of this kind in the style of the hon. Member for Wokingham upon my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) as Chairman of the Special Standing Committee introduced an unnecessary and lamentably sour note into our proceedings. In the few moments since the accusation was made we have examined the report of the three sittings involved. At no stage did any hon. Member of any party raise as a point of order his inability to ask a question. On only two occasions that we can see did the Chairman reprove any hon. Member for verbosity or for wishing to ask more than one question. One was my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), as reported at column 135, the other the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey), at column 112. That seems fairly even-handed.
Finally, when we envisaged the procedure of combining the Select Committee and the Standing Committee and the members of both under the Chairman of the Select Committee it was obvious and inevitable that Select Committee procedure would be used. In a Select Committee, the Chairman takes the lead and asks a great


many questions. If the hon. Member for Wokingham wishes to ridicule and demean the procedures that we used in the Special Standing Committee, I suggest that he should examine comparable procedures in Select Committees and tell us how often the Chairman took the initiative and what proportion of questions were asked by the Chairman giving the lead on each group of subjects. That is why in this case the Chairman asked 40 questions. He was not unfair to any member of the Committee. He did not seek to prevent any hon. Member from getting in or in any way diminish the procedures which, I believe, were a valuable part of our joint deliberations on the Bill.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I shall not enter into the question of the proceedings of the Select Committee on Education, of which I am not a member, although there are other hon. Members present who are on that Committee and who have very strong views about the matter. They can be pushed at another time. Concerning the Special Standing Committee, however, I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he contests the careful figures that I have given. If he does not, how does he justify such an overwhelming proportion of the questions being asked by a combination of Chairman and Labour members of the Committee?

Mr. Kinnock: That is absolutely outrageous.

Mr. Whitehead: It was an extremely tendentious question, and I do not for a moment propose to justify it. If there is a Chairman who happens to be of our party—and a minority of the Chairmen of Select Committees are of our party—and one adds the Chairman's questions to the questions put by members of his party, a majority of questions can be arrived at in that way. But I do not for one moment see what that proves.
My point is that at no stage in the course of the proceedings in Committee did any Conservative Member, or, for that matter, the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who represented the Liberal Party, or any Labour Member, raise a point of order or subsequently complain or table a motion criticising the Chairman of the Committee. I greatly deplore the fact that that has been done in the House tonight. It has soured what ought to be a warm welcome to the Bill. I wish the Bill god-speed in its progress to the other place.

Dr. Boyson: With the leave of the House, I should like briefly to reply to the debate. I concur with what has been said by other hon. Members by way of thanks to Mrs. Warnock and the members of the committee who laid the groundwork for the Bill. We had a good Standing Committee. The arguments that we had there were good tempered and worth while, as they have been today. We have had an argument about resources.

Mr. Field: Mainly from the Opposition Benches.

Dr. Boyson: I shall not even disagree with that comment at this late hour. We are spending up to £½ billion on special education. It is a considerable sum. We should all like to spend more. We have maintained in real terms the expenditure on special education though the numbers have been dropping. That means that in real terms more will be spent per pupil in the next two or three years than is being spent now.
I am sure that we would all want to speed the Bill now to the House of Lords.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the House of Lords completed its consideration of the Bill at 4.46 pm yesterday, and that the Lords amendments were available in the House of Commons Vote Office only at midday today? May I seek your advice on whether Back-Bench Members of this House have been given a proper opportunity to scrutinise the Lords amendments and to table further amendments? Will you also tell us whether you have any way of protecting the House from a Government who are seeking to railroad a highly controversial and obnoxious piece of legislation?

Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to delay the House—I hope that we shall be having a reasonably brief debate in a minute or two—but I should like to add my protest, on behalf of the official Opposition, and to invoke your assistance, because the final stage of the Bill, the consideration of Lords amendments, is appearing with almost indecent haste.
The Third Reading in the House of Lords is a stage at which amendments can be moved, so that there is a genuine difficulty, in that we did not know the final state of the Bill—because it could well have changed during yesterday's consideration in the Lords—until a very late stage. Hon. Members would have had to show enormous agility and manoeuvrability if they were to have an opportunity of looking at the final form of the Bill and making amendments to their Lordships' final version.
I hope that Conservative Members will not take it amiss if I say that I fear that the only interpretation of events is that Bill's controversial parts—which will now be considered—have guaranteed that this non-controversial but important matter of, for example, the disabled has been sacrificed. The Government have made a headlong rush to get an obnoxious measure on to the statute book. Hon. Members face a problem. Other amendments might have been tabled if there had been time for consideration.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If hon. Members are concerned because they feel that they might not have had sufficient opportunity to consider the Lords amendments, I should point out that all the amendments that are before us were passed not less than a week ago. The other place did not pass any amendments last night. Therefore, hon. Members have had at least a week in which to consider their response to them.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister's reply does not answer the point that has been made. Hon. Members were not to know what the other place would do yesterday. Only the Government seemed to know that the matter would be brought before us, because for some reason they assumed that the other place would grant Third Reading. The rest of us could not assume that.
There is a practical problem. Amendments had to be lodged a few days ago. They were lodged blindly, because the Bill's exact lineage was not available to hon. Members. Although we may triumph in the fairly simple amendments before us, the principle involved in bringing a Bill from the other place in such a short space of time is bad. It could cause extreme difficulty in future unless the Chair is prepared to protect our rights against the Government's infringements.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): The Chair is not responsible for the timetable in the other place or for the business that the Government may seek to put before the House. Hon. Members will know that Lords Amendments are frequently taken at short notice. Shall we get on?

Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members are in difficulty. The Bill is being dealt with with indecent haste, largely because the Government wish to justify the Secretary of State's pre-emptive statement on the question of penalising authorities which "overspend". Would it be possible to ask Mr. Speaker to refer this Bill and other Bills to the Select Committee on Procedure? Perhaps the issue could be considered against the background of the Government's timetabling of the following week's business when that business is before the other place.
Since the Conservative Party came to power, the other place has had more work to do. It has had to correct the Government's legislation. During the past two and a half years the House has often been placed in extreme difficulty because Lords amendments are made after next week's business has been announced. I should be grateful. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would draw Mr. Speaker's attention to our exchanges. Perhaps Mr. Speaker would consider referring this matter to the Select Committee on Procedure with the aim of ensuring that the Government treat the House fairly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to Mr. Speaker's attention. However, the hon. Gentleman's dispute is not with the Chair but with the Leader of the House, who is responsible for tabling the business of the House.

Clause 36

PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND CONSIDERATION OF THE NEEDS OF THE DISABLED

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 16 line 5, leave out "In determining any" and insert "When granting an".

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following:
Lords amendment No. 2.
Lords amendment No. 3, in page 16, line 12, leave out from "duty" to end of line 19, and the amendment thereto, at end add
'and insert
and for this purpose each local planning authority shall designate one of its officers to act as liaison officer and co-ordinator in the area of that authority on all matters involving access for disabled people to buildings and other facilities and the application of the British Standards Institution Code of


Practice on Access for the Disabled to Buildings BS 5810: 1979, or such other code or codes as the Secretary of State may prescribe".'.
Lords amendment No. 4, after clause 36, in page 16, line 19, insert new clause A (Further provision as regards the needs of the disabled):
(1) In each of sections 4(1), 5(1), 6(2), 8(1) and 8A(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which impose on persons undertaking the provision of public buildings etc. certain duties as regards the needs of the disabled)—

(a) for the words "provision, in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable" there shall be substituted the words "appropriate provision"; and
(b) at the end there shall be added the words "unless such body as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State is satisfied, after carrying out any procedures which may be so prescribed, that in the circumstances it is either not practicable to make such provision or not reasonable that such pro vision should be made."

(2) After the said section 4(1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) In subsection (1) above "appropriate provision" in relation to any case means provision conforming with so much of the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings as is relevant to that case and "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and in the foregoing provisions of this subsection "the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" means the British Standards Institution code of practice referred to as BS 5810: 1979.
(3) After the said section 5(1) the following words shall be inserted as section 5(1A)—
Subsection (1A) of section 4 of this Act shall apply in relation to the interpretation of the last foregoing subsection of this section as the said subsection (1A) applies in relation to the interpretation of subsection (1) of that section.";
and the same words shall be inserted as sections 6(2A), 8(1A) and 8A(1A) of the said Act of 1970.
(4) In section 28 of the said Act of 1970 (which empowers the Secretary of State to define certain expressions appearing therein), after the word "Parliament" there shall be inserted"—
(a)" and at the end there shall be added the words "; or
(b) amend the definition of "the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" in section 4(1A) of this Act.".
The amendments thereto; in subsection (1)(b), leave out
'such body as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State' 
and insert
'the local building control authority'.
In subsection (1)(b), leave out
'such body as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State'
and insert
'the building control department of the relevant local authority'
Lords amendment No. 6, in clause 42, page 17, line 23, leave out "Section 29" and insert "Sections 29 and A", and the amendment thereto, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment".
The amendment to the Bill in lieu thereof: In page 17, line 22, at end insert
'() Section (Further provision as regards the needs of the disabled) shall come into force on 31st December 1981.'
Lords amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10.

Mr. Rifkind: On Lords Amendment No. 1, the clause as drafted would require local authorities to ensure that developers were aware of their duty under the 1970 Act, even if the local authority intended to refuse to grant planning permission. Clearly that is an unnecessary requirement in the present drafting and the amendment seeks to ensure that that requirement applies only in cases where it is intended to grant planning permission.
Amendment No. 2 is a technical amendment, which removes from the clause an unnecessary reference to section 6 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. It is a technical drafting amendment.
Amendment No. 3 removes from the clause the references to the code of practice for access for the disabled to buildings and the Secretary of State's power to substitute any subsequent code of practice. As we now have a new clause to the Bill, when a planning authority draws the attention of a developer to his duties under the 1970 Act he will be made aware of the existence of the code practice. Therefore, there is no need to make specific provision in this clause.
Amendment No. 6 is consequential on amendment No. 4, to which I shall speak in a moment. It introduces no new element of policy.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are also technical amendments, consequential on the amendment to the clause that deletes the power in that clause to amend the definition of the code of practice for access for the disabled to buildings.
Amendment No. 10 is consequential on the new clause amending the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
Amendment No. 4 is the substantial amendment in this group. It is the only one that has significant policy implications. It amends the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. In that Act a requirement is placed on developers to make provision for the disabled in buildings that are to be open to the public, in so far as it is reasonable and practical to do so.
The amendment will replace that requirement by a requirement to make provision in every case unless a body to be prescribed in regulations is satisfied after carrying out any procedures that may be prescribed, that in the circumstances of the case it is not practicable or reasonable for such provision to be made. In short, it transfers the onus of determining whether it is practicable and reasonable to make provision for the needs of disabled people from the developer to an independent party.
I hope that the House will recognise that this change represents a significant step forward. It represents the Government's consideration of the whole matter in the light of the debates in the House and in another place and our determination to ensure, along with many hon. Members of all parties, that in this International Year of Disabled People there should be significant improvements in our policy.
Hon. Members will be pleased to know that it is the Government's intention that similar provisions will be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom by means of an amendment to the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), which is at present being considered in another place.
The details of the procedure to be followed under the amendments and the identification of the body that will adjudicate, in cases where the developer does not propose to make appropriate provision, will require to be considered carefully. It is our intention to undertake substantial consultations with interested parties, including the disabled, before determining the content of the regulations which the new clause gives my right hon. Friend power to make.
I hope that these amendments will be acceptable to the House. I have heard that they were welcomed in another


place. They are similar to suggestions advocated by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and by other hon. Members of all parties. I hope that the amendments will now be approved by the House.

Mr. Home Robertson: When, in committee, I opportunistically tabled a new clause to provide better arrangements for access for the disabled to public buildings, I never in my wildest dreams imagined that it would lead to the new clause that we are now considering. By a series of happy events this has turned into a major breakthrough for disabled people, coming at a most opportune time, during this International Year of Disabled People.
There is still a tremendous amount to be done for disabled people, but if they are to be able to play their part in society, as they should be, one of the first things that we should do for them is to make sure that they can at least go to the usual places that normal members of the public can visit—shops, offices and other public buildings.
This experience has been most encouraging to me, not least because it shows that once in a blue moon an initiative by an Opposition Back Bencher can lead to improvements in the law. In fairness, I should also pay tribute to the Under-Secretary for moving as far and as fast as he has on this important issue, in spite of the known hostility of his friends in the Department of the Environment. Indeed, it appears that by leaning against an almost open door in the Scottish Office those who are concerned about access for the disabled have been able to outflank the Department of the Environment, which is a good thing.
New clause A is the one redeeming feature in a fundamentally obnoxious and shocking Bill, which will do great harm to local government and probably indirectly cause great hardship to many groups of needy people, including the disabled
The most welcome and significant of these Lords amendments is Lords amendment No. 4, which could make it possible at last to enforce the access provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Those provisions laid a duty on developers to provide access for disabled people to new buildings, but the Act failed to appoint an authority to enforce that duty. It became clear that it was only too easy to turn a blind eye to the obligation. One has only to look at any recently built public building in any High Street in any town in the United Kingdom to see that the branches of chain stores have one or two steps at their entrance, a narrow door, or an awkward passage, all of which are impossible obstacles for people who have to move around in wheelchairs.
The let-out in the 1970 Act was that provision did not have to be made unless it was "practicable and reasonable". Worse than that, no particular body was designated to have the authority to enforce that duty. Therefore, the provision has in effect been a dead letter ever since 1970–11 long years for disabled people.
Lords amendment No. 4 provides that a developer must prove that such provision is unreasonable or impracticable before he is granted a waiver by an as yet unspecified authority. Indeed, he must prove that it is not reasonable or practicable before he is allowed to proceed with erecting a building without proper facilities for disabled people.

This was called for by the Silver Jubilee committee on access for the disabled. The amendment puts the onus of proof that something is impracticable or unreasonably fairly and squarely where it belongs—on the shoulders of developers.
The amendment is welcome, but I am concerned about three remaining unanswered questions. First, we do not know who will be responsible for enforcing the provision. It has been made clear that the burden of proof is being transferred to the developer, but we do not yet know to whom that proof will have to be furnished.
Secondly, when will the new provisions come into effect? I repeat that disabled people have had to wait 11 years for the coming into effect of the access provisions of the 1970 Act even to be thought of. The Minister should tell the House when he expects the provisions to come into effect in Scotland. On the assumption that local authorities will be given the job of enforcing the provisions, no guarantee appears to have yet been given that the authorities will be geared to applying proper consideration to their new duties.
10.45 pm
Three sets of amendments have therefore been tabled. The first requires local authorities to appoint access officers to carry out the functions that I have discussed. The second specifies that building control authorities should be responsible for enforcing the provisions. The third ensures that the new provisions shall come into effect during the course of this year—the International Year of Disabled People.
I wish to dwell for a moment on the question of access officers. It is right to expect that the local authorities assuming these responsibilities should designate one of their officers to co-ordinate consideration of the needs of disabled people. The Scottish Committee on Access for Disabled People made representations to COSLA some time ago. COSLA, in turn, recommended that all Scottish local authorities should designate voluntarily one of their officers to be an access officer. Forty-eight of the local planning and building control authorities in Scotland responded voluntarily and positively to the request by designating one of their officers to be an access officer. Two authorities, Gordon district council and Dumfries and Galloway regional council, refused. It is perhaps pure coincidence that these two authorities are Conservative-controlled.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that neither authority is Conservative-controlled. Both are controlled by Independents.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am glad to hear that there is some doubt about the political allegiance of those who dominate those two local authorities. This is perhaps a foretaste of the meanness to be expected from Conservative and Right-Wing local authorities under the new regime introduced by the Bill.
I spoke yesterday by telephone to Mr. Alexander Farquhar, of the Scottish Committee on Access for Disabled People, who confirmed that the committee had strong feelings towards the two defaulting authorities. He expressed the fear that if two authorities could get away with this kind of attitude, others might opt to follow, especially when authorities in the coming months and years will be so pinched for funds.
If these two authorities and, perhaps, others were to resist the proposal that they should designate an access


officer for disabled people, a situation could arise in which those authorities would not be able to deal efficiently with complicated and specialised matters. The needs of the disabled would not be properly met within defaulting authority areas. It is only too possible that the needs of the disabled would fall between two stools. Neither the building control committee nor the planning committee might properly consider a matter, with the result that nothing happened.
In the other place the Minister of State referred to a flexible approach to the needs of the disabled. I can think of a number of literal examples of that approach, notably Ayr police station, to which I referred on Report, when the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose constituency is Ayr, was present. It appears that due to muddle in local authority offices, and because no one was dealing properly with the matter, the police authority was able to get away with the suggestion that Ayr police station was not a public building and therefore not subject to the provisions of the Bill.
In the other place the Government were pressed on the issue of the defaulting authorities. Only yesterday the Minister of State said:
I propose, therefore, to have arrangements made for the question of the attitude adopted by these two authorities to be considered further with the Convention.
That is not good enough. The disabled are fed up with having their needs considered; it is time for action. The Minister of State said that:
such a measure could not have been reconciled with the general policy of legislating to require local authorities to make particular appointments only where this is regarded as being absolutely essential, it would have been insulting to the many authorities which have made appropriate arrangements without any hint of pressure from the Government—
We propose to draw attention to the arrangements which have been made for designating access officers in the forthcoming circular to local authorities on the access provisions of the Bill."—[Official Report, House of Lords,9 June 1981; Vol. 421, c. 128–9.]
I shall say more about that circular later.
The Minister's arguments against requiring local authorities to designate access officers are pitiful. Does he really think that a local authority that has appointed an access officer voluntarily will take umbrage if a defaulting authority is subsequently required by statute to make an appointment? That is rubbish. Equally, the argument that there are no precedents for imposing a statutory requirement to appoint local authority officers is weak. I did some homework and discovered that under section 64 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 a number of local authority officers must be appointed because of statutory provisions—for example, chief fire officers and members of fire brigades, electoral registration officers, directors of education, weights and measures inspectors, directors of social work, reporters to children's panels and agricultural analysts and deputies. If there is a statutory requirement on local authorities to employ agricultural analysts and deputies, it is not unreasonable to suggest—especially in view of the complicted nature of the legislation—that local authorities should be required to appoint access officers.
I feel strongly about the issue. I appeal to the Minister to say something constructive. If he does not, I cannot rule out the possibility that I may press the relevant amendment to a vote. I shall be interested to see whether he is

prepared, at this time of night, to dragoon Conservative Members into the Division Lobbies to vote against a better provision for the disabled.
I wish to press the Minister to confide in the House about whom he has in mind to be the body prescribed by the Secretary of State to be responsible for the new functions. The Scottish Committee on Access for Disabled People favours local building control authorities. That appears to be a reasonable suggestion. They would have suitably qualified staff, and already process building control applications. It would be helpful if the Minister would say whether he would be prepared to accept an amendment at this stage.
Further points about the as yet unspecified designated authority need to be answered. First, can developers appeal against the decisions of the body, and if so, to whom? Secondly, can individuals or organizations interested in the disabled appeal against waivers granted by the as yet unspecified authority? If so, to whom—will it be the Secretary of State? Very much appears to depend on the terms of the circular that has been promised about the handling of the consideration of the needs of the disabled by planning authorities. I am a little worried about ministerial backsliding on that issue. On March 23 I pressed the Secretary of State to clarify whether planners had the power to require developers to provide for the disabled. He said:
Access for the disabled is certainly a material consideration … the Government are prepared to make it clear to planning authorities that this is so. The circular will set out to try and do that.
He went on:
It is the case that a planning authority may impose conditions. That will be strengthened by a circular telling them that they jolly well ought to impose conditions."—[Official Report, 23 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 753–4.]
Now we have the benefit of access to the draft circular. In my opinion it is rather feeble, particularly in view of the Secretary of State's brave statements not so long ago. It says:
The extent to which the provision of facilities for the disabled is a material planning consideration will depend on the circumstances of each case. The internal layout and design of buildings and the details of the provision of facilities within buildings are not normally matters with which planning authorities should be concerned. However, the arrangements for access to buildings may"—
I stress "may"—
be planning matters and the suitability of the arrangements for use by the public, including disabled members of the public, can raise issues of public amenity which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, would be material to a planning application.
It says further on:
"Where appropriate, conditions may"—
again, I stress "may"—
be attached to a grant of planning permission to deal with the matter.
That does not fulfil the undertaking given by the Secretary of State last month. As this equivocation has occurred so soon, it is not surprising that the Minister is coming under pressure at this stage to provide something more specific.
Finally, and for the same reasons, I urge the Minister to give us a clear undertaking that the provisions will come into effect during 1981—the International Year of Disabled People.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: As the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has stolen most of my thunder, I shall be commendably brief. I do not


necessarily share his eulogy on the Government in connection with the amendment adopted by the House of Lords.
The Government's attitude on Report was niggardly and parsimonious. They were not prepared to concede much to help the disabled. Because of pressure in the House of Lords—not to mention pressure from the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian in Committee, pressure from the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), over a period, in relation to his own Bill, and other offerings on Report from myself and other hon. Members—the Government eventually conceded in the House of Lords that they would have to do something.
The Government deserve credit only by contrast with the even more reprehensible conduct of the Department of Environment, which otherwise would have done nothing at all for the disabled in the year that has been designated for their benefit.
The amendment adopted by the Lords strengthens the existing position and is to be welcomed. However, its drafting is deficient in many respects. Some of its deficiences were alluded to by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian. The first concerns the timing. Lord Mansfield, in the other place, was asked on several occasions when the measure would come into effect. The nearest that he came to being pinned down was when he said that he hoped that it would come into effect during this year of the disabled, 1981, but that he could give no guarantees, because of the continuing consultations that were to take place. That is not good enough.
During our late-night sitting on the Education (Scotland) Bill I referred to the system of junior colleges that has been enshrined in Education Acts since 1945 but never initiated. In the debate in the House of Lords, one of the noble Ladies gave an example of legislation in 1976 which is still awaiting implementation. So the House should be given a starting date for this provision.
The second matter relates to control. We have to await regulations that are unspecified. We do not know what they will contain. Unless we know their content we may find them unsatisfactory. That is why the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian, myself and my right hon. Friend tabled amendments to place specific responsibility on the building control departments of local authorities.
I associate myself with the amendment of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian that relates to access officers. I see no reason why there should not be legislative proposals for access officers, which would involve no additional public expenditure. It is a matter of designation rather than appointment.
11 pm
My second criticism is directed to the absence of sanctions. Apparently there are two local authorities that ignore arrangements for the disabled. There must be some provision that the Government have in mind apart from the issuing of circulars to ensure that the statutory obligations are fulfilled. The Bill is full of onerous sanctions. The local authorities will be clubbed to death if they dare step out of line with the Government's strategy. Surely some sanction could have been incorporated to take care of local authorities that might default in respect of the disabled.
I was not impressed by the way in which Lord Mansfield failed to answer the specific questions that were

directed to him on 2 June in another place. He failed yesterday to make more detailed replies when he had the opportunity to do so. We are still not much wiser about when the provisions will come into effect, the nature of the regulations, and the identity of the prescribed body for monitoring them and injecting facilities for the disabled. The Government have made a stab in the right direction, but they have not responded in a proper professional manner. The late moment at which the measure will come into effect demonstrates the grudging and belated way in which they have responded to appeals from organisations representing the disabled and to pressure from Opposition parties.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I pay a warm tribute to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for the initiative that he has taken and the work that he has done. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is once in a blue moon that the actions of a Member of Parliament lead to change. I think that he has broken through the blue moon barrier. That is a tribute to him and a tribute to the Scottish Office for responding to the hon. Gentleman's arguments. Our democracy works in no other way than when an hon. Member makes a proposal, if it is seen to be wise and sensible the authorities respond thereto.
The hon. Gentleman referred rightly to the delay in implementation. That is something that I underline. He was right to devote a considerable part of his speech to access officers. My Liberal colleagues in another place, and notably Lord Thurso, laid stress on them. The basic question is whether provision for the disabled should be required generally to be available. As a believer in local democracy I am reluctant to enforce views on local authorities. However, the position of the disabled is such that their rights should properly be nationally defined. That is a view that is accepted by many on both sides of the House.
For that reason I support warmly what the hon. Gentleman said, which covered what the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) in turn has done over a long period, to which I pay tribute. Equally, I pay tribute to what the Liberal Party has sought to do. The Government have responded to pressure. They would not lose anything or be deflected seriously from their policies if they accepted all the amendments. It would not make any difference to what they are doing. It would be a significant contribution in the International Year of Disabled People if they were to indicate that they share the feelings of hon. Members in all parts of the House who do not want to make a party issue of this. Therefore, I ask the Minister if he will make a gesture to the disabled. It would not cost much money and it would be responded to warmly.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: May I crave indulgence to intervene briefly in the debate? I am grateful for the references that have been made to the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill, in which I am interested and which is analogous to the Bill under discussion.
I should like to raise with the Minister questions that were put in the House of Lords on Report on 2 June by Baroness Masham of Ilton, because the answers would be as relevant to my Bill as to this Bill. The questions that she put to the Minister, the Earl of Mansfield, were these:
I should like to ask the noble Earl the Minister just a few questions."—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote what was said; he may paraphrase it.

Mr. Wigley: I defer to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Baroness Masham was interested to know who the prescribed body would be and whether the local authority would be responsible for building regulations. That point has been brought up by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). Lady Masham also asked who would check on the facilities for disabled people, which is important. She wanted to know whether that would be done at the same time as other regulations were being checked.
A pertinent question put by her was: if the developer disagreed with the prescribed body, would he be allowed to appeal against the decision and would the appeal go to the court or to the Secretary of State? If the developer did not introduce the facilities that were required, she wanted to know what sanctions the prescribed body would have and whether they would be identical to those under normal building regulations.
Those were all relevant questions. When answering the debate the Earl of Mansfield failed to respond to them but said that they would be dealt with in due course; he said that perhaps they would try to answer some of them before Third Reading but, if not, discussion would take place thereafter. At Third Reading there was no progress on answering the questions. Some of them need an answer. For instance, if fines were to be used, would that not require primary legislation? Therefore, are we in a situation in which fines are ruled out as a sanction against those who do not carry out the requirements of the legisaltion?
It is relevant to define the prescribed body. There is a strong body of opinion not only in Scotland, as we have heard, but in England and Wales, that local authorities that are in charge of building regulations ought to be the prescribed bodies. If the Minister can go no further, I ask him to give some indication of Government thinking on the prescribed body. That is centrally relevant to the effectiveness of the new clause.
The new clause is to be welcomed, provided that it is effective. To be effective, we have to know how it will operate. Saying that that will be determined by regulations at a later stage does not throw enough light on the central question around which the matter revolves.
I ask the Minister, for the benefit to the people not only of Scotland, but of Wales and England, who in this instance are following Scotland—I congratulate the Scottish Office on having taken this initiative—to provide some clarity, as it will be of great importance and relevance to many people who are following the debate.

Mr. Dewar: I made my protest, which I shall not repeat, about tie timing of the debate. It is extraordinary that we should be considering the Lords amendments while their Lordships' voices are practically dying away in the corridor outside the door. The term "indecent haste", which has been mentioned more than once, is entirely appropriate.
We are fortunate that a number of hon. Members who have shown persistent and justified interest in this area were watching closely and making contingency plans

about what might happen on Third Reading in another place. Those plans fortunately turned out to be justified and allowed us to put down appropriate amendments to have a proper debate tonight. That is not a satisfactory basis on which to proceed, however. Although there may be precedents—I have not been in this place long enough to be able to bandy them—for us to consider Lords amendments within less than 24 hours of their Lordships having finalised them, they are bad and should not be followed as a general rule.
The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill is to be generally welcomed. There is an area of sanity in a Bill which is marked not by sanity, but by arbitrary and vindictive spleen which has been shown consistently by Conservative Ministers towards local government in Scotland.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will not think me ungracious if I say that I shall not add to the general praise of the Government for having brought forward the measures. In a sense, it is undeserved praise. When the Bill first saw the light of day, there was nothing in it about access for the disabled. The clause which we are now considering, which has gone through certain stages of development, is entirely the result of activity by Back Benchers who are not members of the Minister's party. I add my praise to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who first introduced the question of access for the disabled into the Bill.
I shall give some praise to the Minister, although it is tepid. He has shown some flexibility. He has been harried and has given ground. At various stages, he has accepted what is cumulatively a significant improvement in access. There would have been absolutely nothing in the Bill at all if my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, in consultation with the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and one or two others, had not taken the initiative and pointed a pistol at the Minister's head by introducing his version, which he hoped would meet the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian took the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, looked at section 4 and recognised, as did many of us, that it had started out with high aspirations but that there had been little action. It was not an adequate way of ensuring that access to public buildings was properly considered.
The hon. Member put down a new clause to ensure that the duty to consider the disabled and the possibilities of access was carried out. It was because the Minister felt that, faced with that initiative, he could not fail to make some sort of response that we started on the trail. A Government new clause was put down. Efforts were made to amend it. The Government gave a little more ground, the new clause ended up in the House of Lords and they gave further ground.
11.15 pm
It is not a case of the Minister setting out with good intentions. What good has been done has been done by stealth. So far as Scottish local authorities are concerned, this Government do as much harm as they can and as much good as they must. We are grateful to a number of hon. Members for forcing the Government to do good. The praise should go to them.
Having said that, of course I welcome the position at which we have finally arrived. It is an important step that


efforts are now being made to make section 4 of the 1970 Act that bit more effective. Even those who take only the most cursory interest in the cause of the disabled will heartily welcome the removal or final death of that famous qualification
in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable".
The onus shifts to the developer. I hope that that will be an impetus to local authorities to use the power of scrutiny to which the Minister drew attention in a circular and that we may see a much more positive effort to ensure that the interests of the disabled are specifically looked to when planning permission is considered.
All hon. Members wish to give a fair wind to the new clause, but I add my voice to those of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and others who suggest that the Minister should look with sympathy at a clutch of amendments put down to their Lordships' final version. I believe that those who spoke in the debate in another place would add their weight to the appeal.
The question of liaison officers is very important. There is always difficulty in putting statutory forms of words into practice. We may now have a section 4 of the 1970 Act that is much more satisfactory, but, unfortunately, it does not necessarily follow from that legal legislative development that we shall see the positive monitoring of a development with the interests of the disabled in mind that we should all like. It is an important safeguard to have someone in the local authority with a statutory duty to carry out the scrutiny.
The Minister may ask why we are getting hot under the collar. After all, 48 out of 50 Scottish planning authorities have already done it. However, that is a double-edged argument. If the vast majority of authorities accept and recognise the virtue of making the appointment, we should ensure that it becomes universal and is honoured right across the board.
I do not pass judgment on Dumfries and Galloway or Gordon. I do not want to enter into political semantics with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), about whether they are independent Conservatives, Conservative independents or what. That is not the point. Here are two local authorities which, for reasons best known to themselves, have appointed a liaison officer, which, I believe, hon. Members universally feel should be an office filled in every local authority.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon mentioned sanctions. I do not know whether we need sanctions in the Bill, but the machinery under the old 1966 Act has been revamped in an unnecessarily severe fashion in clause 13 by the sanction for excessive and unreasonable expenditure. Under the old Act there were sanctions for authorities that underspent and did not provide a decent level of service. The failure to give proper weight and energy to enforcing reasonable access for the disabled may be a sign that an authority is not providing a proper range of services for those in its area.
I believe that there is an overwhelming case for the appointment of liaison officers. If the Minister tries to shelter behind the voluntary principle, I can only say that, having sat through the lengthy and convoluted Committee stage and having considered the consequences of the extremely severe penal sanctions, the straitjacket placed

on local authorities and the constant encroachment upon their freedom of manoeuvre, the Opposition will give only a mighty horse laugh if the Minister suggests that in some way the principle of freedom for local authorities makes it abhorrent to suggest that there should be a designated officer to deal with access for the disabled.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with the best will in the world, to bureaucratise, to be precise in definition and so forth is no substitute for a broad acceptance of the spirit of the matter with regard to access for the disabled? I could cite an example of a disabled person, hearing that a local labatory had been made available for the disabled, went to try it and found great difficulty of access. When he went to the local authority, he was told that it had been constructed according to all the diagrams and specifications laid down in the book, but the authority had not actually asked a disabled person whether it was a sensible thing to do.

Mr. Dewar: I regard that as a splendid argument for the appointment of a liaison officer who would ask the disabled whether it was suitable. I am genuinely obliged to the hon. Member, who, as always, perhaps unintentionally, has been extremely helpful. He is, of course, right about the importance of general acceptance and good will. As we all know, when the 1970 Act was passed the House thought that the problem was solved, yet 11 years later we are still struggling to get this right.
The appointment of a liaison officer would not infringe the voluntary principle in any way, nor would it infringe the rather mean approach to local government finance that the Minister has to observe. I therefore echo the appeal that has been made. There is every reason for making a gesture on this occasion, perhaps showing a generous turn of mind and introducing a little variety into the conduct of the Conservative Administration. Such a gesture would receive a very warm welcome indeed.
Finally, the timing is important. When Governments make statements about their intention to move as quickly as possible but immediately add that there must be consultation, warning bells start to ring. In my experience, consultation can become an unco' long process unless there is a terminal date which must be met and to which Ministers are committed. It would seem to me a simple concept to aim to complete this round of not very complicated administrative considerations within the International Year of Disabled Persons.
Back Benchers have done something good on this occasion in managing to jockey the Minister along and jolly him into improving the legal structure and the possibilities of access for the disabled. Nevertheless, more could be done. The Minister would make a real contribution if he accepted our additional amendments. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) rightly spoke of the importance of good will and the willingness to show good will. It would be a splendid example if the Minister would show the necessary flexibility to take on board these very small but important additional moves, which would do a great deal to bolster and define the limited but useful changes that he is now introducing.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank Opposition Members who, with the conspicuous but unfortunately predictable exception of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar),


have welcomed the spirit in which the Government and the Scottish Office have responded to the points made by Opposition Members and, indeed, some of my hon. Friends in Committee by introducing amendments in another place and, indeed, in the Committee to deal with questions of access for the disabled.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) called upon the Government to make a gesture. The hon. Member for Garscadden asked the Government to be flexible. I think that both hon. Members will feel obliged to concede that the very existence of Government amendments, moved either in this House or in another place, shows that the Government are flexible and anxious to do all that is reasonable in the International Year of the Disabled to help that section of the community.
I turn to the specific points that were raised. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) asked who would be responsible for enforcement of the requirements.
I first make the general point that there is to be a process of consultation. One of its primary objectives is to try to establish who would be the best authority to deal with the matter. The Government do not start with any preconceived notion of who that ought to be. Therefore, we are anxious that the consultation should be genuine. There are a number of options that we shall wish to pursue without any degree of commitment at this stage.
One possibility is obviously the local authority, whether it be the planning department or the building control department. The latter might be even more appropriate, if it is to be the local authority. There have been suggestions that it might be an independent body, such as the Institute of Arbiters, which has experience in dealing with disagreements of this kind. It could be a body specially established for a purpose of this sort. It could be some voluntary organisation with experience in such matters. I put these forward as various options, but at this stage the Government have no preconceived view of what would be the best way of dealing with the matter. We are anxious to hear the views not only of the local authorities but of the disabled and other groups with a legitimate interest.
The second question, put to me by both the hon. Gentlemen to whom I have referred, related to the time at which the provisions would come into force. They argued—I can understand their argument—that it would be highly desirable that they should come into force during the International Year of Disabled People. We should like that to happen, and hope that it will happen, but I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will accept that for me to give an absolute cast-iron guarantee would be inappropriate at this stage.
We are already half way through the year. We hope that the consultations will enable us to come to a conclusion during the course of this year. Obviously, there is no particular reason why we should wish to avoid this year. Clearly, it is an appropriate year for any change of this kind. But I cannot give an absolute assurance; I can only say that we shall do our best to achieve that sort of time scale.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I am not arguing about the Government's good intentions, but surely the Minister is saying that the Government are putting it off.

Mr. Rifkind: The last thing that I am saying is that we are putting it off. If I were saying that we were not intending to start the negotiations until next year or the year after, or some undefined time, that might be a legitimate accusation to make to me, but I am not saying that. We intend to start the consultations straight away, but I am not able to say how long they will take.
Hon. Members must remember that it is not only a matter of the consultations; once the consultations have been complete it will be necessary, in terms of the amendment, to frame regulations and to introduce them. Only when the regulations have come into force will it be possible to say that the amendments have taken effect.
These matters take time. Although I am in no way ruling out the possibility of everything being achieved during the remainder of this year, I cannot give an absolute assurance to that effect. But we intend to start consultations in the very near future, and I can assure the hon. Member for Inverness that we have exactly the same interest as anybody else in ensuring that the matter is properly resolved in as short a time as is reasonable in order to ensure the best result.
I can tell the hon. Member for Caernarvon that questions such as whether there will be an appeal, and who will check, will be covered in the regulations themselves; therefore, that is obviously what the consultations will also be about. We shall want again to find the views of the local authorities, of the disabled and of other interested parties, before coming to a final view on the matter, but we do not rule out some of the options that hon. Members have suggested. The regulations will obviously have to be framed to cover that sort of area.
Another important point related to access officers.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister is now moving away from the question of the building regulations. I mentioned sanctions. Does it need primary legislation to impose sanctions that may take the form of fines? What is the Government's thinking in that regard? Is any time limit set for response from the voluntary organisations, so that the Government can thereafter start working on the draft of the paper?

Mr. Rifkind: On the latter point, we expect a reasonable response from the voluntary organisations and others concerned. We were talking about negotiations that will begin in the near future, and we would expect the information to be coming in within weeks rather than months, but if there is any suggestion of delay on anyone's part we shall want to know why, and shall wish to ensure that we get the information as quickly as possible.
I cannot at the moment give a certain reply on the question of fines, but I think that the hon. Member for Caernarvon is correct in saying that the imposition of fines would require primary legislation. I shall check and write to him with a specific answer.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian referred to the circular. Clearly the changes under consideraton by the House will mean that a revised circular will be necessary. We intend to issue a revised circular soon, and before sending it to local authorities we shall make it available for consideration by the authorities and other interested bodies. We shall take account of their comments before issuing the final revised circular.
A number of hon. Members referred to access officers. I listened with amusement to the hon. Member for


Garscadden calling for rigid requirements to be imposed on local authorities and arguing that the Government and the House should dictate to authorities whom they should appoint. That is slightly different from the arguments that we have heard from the hon. Gentleman on every other part of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman conceded that 48 of the 50 planning authorities in Scotland have voluntarily agreed to designate access officers. He appeared to be calling for the Government to impose a statutory obligation, which would apply not only to the two but to every authority. I can see an argument for saying that when the bulk of local authorities, or a significant number of them, are not complying with what Parliament or the Government believe to be the national interest, legislation may be needed to ensure that the majority conform. But, without any question of legislation, and on the request of voluntary bodies, 48 of the 50 planning authorities have done as requested, and there is no reason to believe that the other two will not also do so eventually.
The hon. Gentleman's argument that we should use the sledgehammer of legislation is slightly different from the arguments used by the Opposition on the rest of the Bill.

Mr. Dewar: I am delighted to know that the Under-Secretary has been entertained by my efforts. It is a small consolation for a late night, but one that I treasure.
The Government have encroached on the independence of local authorities in their vital functions, and that has been opposed by every local authority in Scotland—Tory, Labour, Independent or pseudo-Independent. There is an enormous distinction between that sort of legislative tyranny and a suggestion that we should make it a legal rule that a certain officer should be designated for certain duties. A clear consensus is emerging that that is a right and proper policy but, unfortunately, a small group apparently dissents from that view and in those circumstances a legal requirement is not only justified but thoroughly desirable.

Mr. Rifkind: There has certainly not been a consensus for such a statutory obligation. I notice that neither the hon. Gentleman nor his hon. Friends suggested that they had spoken to COSLA or had had a clear indication from COSLA or any other organisation representing local authorities that they were anxious or willing to have such a statutory obligation.
It is unusual for Parliament to dictate to a local authority how it should use its employees. Parliament does not even require a local authority to appoint a chief executive or a director of finance. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should ignore that tradition, even though 48 authorities have already voluntarily done what he seeks.
I understand that Dumfries and Galloway regional council expects one of its building control officers to pay special regard to the needs of the disabled when access is being considered but does not consider it necessary to appoint someone for this job at this stage. In the forthcoming circular we shall seek to encourage the remaining two local authorities to consider such a designation and we shall discuss with COSLA whether it will support such representations.
A statutory obligation of this kind is not appropriate. I hope that that will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister seems to be setting great store by an as yet undrafted circular, which will not have the force of law anyway. Will he answer my point—that, if local authorities are required by statute to designate, among other people, agricultural analysts—it is not unreasonable, in the International Year of Disabled People, to require local authorities to designate an official to undertake these specialised and complicated functions?

Mr. Rifkind: First, local authorities are not required to designate their chief executives—

Mr. Home Robertson: They are required to designate agricultural analysts.

Mr. Rifkind: That anomaly may exist, but that is no reason for unnecessarily duplicating it. Only two authorities have not already made such a designation voluntarily, and they may be willing to do so in any event—

Mr. Home Robertson: Then why resist the amendment?

Mr. Rifkind: For the simple reason that Parliament should be invited to impose statutory obligations on local authorities only when the majority, or a significant number, of them are not carrying out an activity that Parliament is convinced is in the national interest, or when some other important issue needs to be implemented if the majority of local authorities are to conform to a national standard. That does not apply in this case, so there is no common-sense basis for the amendment.
I believe that the hon. Member for Garscadden is pressing this not because he believes that it makes fundamental difference but because, having achieved significant changes in the Bill—for which I give him credit—he finds it unattractive to give the Government any of the credit. He was surprised to realise that 48 out of the 50 Scottish local authorities would do this, so he is now making an enormous fuss about something that the other two may be pressed to do by circular.
If the voluntary approach has already succeeded with the majority of authorities, is the hon. Gentleman not making a mountain out of a molehill by suggesting that this is a case for parliamentary enforcement?

Mr. Home Robertson: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Home Robertson: On a point of order. I had understood that the Lords amendments would be taken one at a time and that we would have an opportunity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Indeed, they will.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in

page 16, line 12, leave out from "duty" to end of line 19. Read a Second time.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, at end add
'and insert "and for this purpose each local planning authority shall designate one of its officers to act as liaison officer and co-ordinator in the area of that authority on all matters involving access for disabled people to buildings and other facilities and the application of the British Standards Institution Code of Practice on Access for the Disabled to Buildings BS 5810: 1979, or other such code or codes as the Secretary of State may prescribe". '.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 63.

Division No.218]
[11.40 pm.


AYES


Buchan, Norman
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cryer, Bob
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Dewar, Donald
Wigley, Dafydd


Ewing, Harry



Grant, George (Morpeth)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Gordon Wilson and


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Mr. Russell Johnston.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Grylls, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bendall, Vivian
Henderson, Barry


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Knight, Mrs Jill


Blackburn, John
Le Marchant, Spencer


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Macfarlane, Neil


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Buck, Antony
Major, John


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Mellor, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Colvin, Michael
Mudd, David


Cope, John
Murphy, Christopher


Dorrell, Stephen
Needham, Richard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Newton, Tony


Eggar, Tim
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Farr, John
Pollock, Alexander


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Renton, Tim


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sproat, lain


Goodlad, Alastair
Steen, Anthony





Stevens, Martin
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Donald



Wakeham,John
Tellers for the Noes:


Walker, B. (Perth)
Mr. Selwyn Gummer and


Wheeler, John
Mr. Carol Mather.


Wickenden, Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, put and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to Lords amendment No. 4, to which there is an amendment.

Mr. Home Robertson: The amendment is not being moved.

Lords amendment No. 4 agreed to.

Clause 42

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 17, line 20, leave out "section 6(7) of the 1956 Act or".

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 9 at the same time.

Mr. Rifkind: These are technical amendments, which have no policy implications. I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 10 agreed to.

Greenside Special School, Wombwell

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I wish to raise the subject of special education facilities for children with speaking and learning difficulties, which is connected with the proposed closure of Greenside special school, Wombwell.
British education aims to develop fully the abilities of individuals both young and old. It seeks to do so not only for their benefit but for that of society as a whole. That aim has assumed a new importance in an age of rapid technological change. We must not forget that education is still compulsory for children aged between 5 and 16. Society has the tremendous responsibility of ensuring that our education standards are as high as possible. That is particularly important for those with learning difficulties.
In the past few years there has been a reduction in the number of schoolchildren. Thus, there has been a reduction in the number of teachers. Unfortunately, the Government decided to reduce the number of teachers almost in proportion to the drop in the number of schoolchildren. Sadly, there has not been much of a reduction in the size of classes. Therefore, today's teachers usually face as difficult a task as that faced in the past two decades. However, the task is not as difficult as that faced four or five decades ago.
In my young days it was common to have 40 or 50 children to a class. Today, there are 20 to 30 children to a class. Even so, with a surplus of teachers, some classes have more than 30 pupils. Unfortunately, little progress has been made in specialist training for disadvantaged children in the last few years. Some progress has, of course, occurred, but no hon. Member can claim to be happy about the situation. To talk to the parents of these unfortunate children makes one realise the good fortune of those who have responsibility for children lucky enough to be born normal.
About 2,000 separate schools, day and boarding, cater for different categories of learning disabilities. There are schools for the blind, the partially sighted, the deaf, the partially hearing, the educationally subnormal, the maladjusted, the physically handicapped and those who are epileptic, autistic or in delicate health. Rarely mentioned are those who suffer from dyslexia. Too many sections of the educational community refuse to accept that it even exists. However, the parents are fully aware of the dangers to a child's future unless special tuition is provided.
The debate still continues about whether children with learning difficulties should be accommodated in special schools or attend ordinary schools. Integration into ordinary schools poses many questions.
There are places for 50 children at the Greenside special school, Wombwell, in the Barnsley metropolitan borough area. Unfortunately, the school has been allowed deliberately to run down. Only 29 places are used. With 40,000 pupils attending schools in the Barnsley area, the provision for children with learning difficulties amounts to about 2 per cent. According to the Warnock report, the provision throughout the country is about 5 per cent. The

school is not being closed because there are too many places for children with learning difficulties. The fear is that the decision stems from the Government's attitude in reducing grants for education. Barnsley has obviously to cut back on education spending.
There is no question of a system of integration replacing the existing segregated arrangements. Government expenditure cuts mean that Barnsley has to try to reduce local government spending. I am not certain whether Ministers are aware of the feelings of the parents of these unfortunate children whose education will be neglected. Why is it so easy to take action that harms the disadvantaged in the community? Is it because they are weak and incapable of looking after themselves? Is it because they cannot protest?
It is difficult to accept that the needs of these children can be met in ordinary schools. The parents tend not to be over-vociferous about the fact that their children are mentally backward or have other learning difficulties. If we adopt an integrated system of teaching, more teachers must be trained to give special tuition. There must be small classes so that individual attention can be given. If all the factors that surround the integrated system are taken into account, it is possible to prove that the cost will be greater.
I am informed by a reliable source that in the South Yorkshire area heads of ordinary schools, especially infant and junior, need help in that area but are not receiving it. Surprisingly, ESN schools have places available but the children are not allowed to go to that sort of school. Although the headmasters recommend that the children should attend those schools, the authority will not allow it. That is why, although Greenside school has 50 places, only 29 are filled.
Some psychologists say that there is no demand for the empty places. If that is true, the Barnsley area is not typical of the country as a whole. The places available are well below Warnock's recommendations. Evidence suggests that there are too many children with learning difficulties in ordinary schools. They are not able to obtain places in special schools and so are not receiving proper education. The ordinary schools are not geared to ensure that those children obtain the necessary tuition.
The headmaster of Greenside school applied for his school to be designated as a special school for children with speaking difficulties. His application was refused by the education officer for the Barnsley metropolitan borough council. I understand that had it been designated a special school it would not be easy for the council to close it. That was why the application was refused. A question was raised whether the staff had the necessary qualifications. That is why I find it difficult to understand why the application was refused. All teachers at that school hold, in addition to the usual teaching qualifications, a diploma for the education of children with learning dificulties.
There is evidence that when headmasters in the Barnsley metropolitan area recommend that a child should attend a special school they are told that no places are available. Greenside school has had success in teaching children whose needs would not be met in another school in the Barnsley district. If Greenside school is closed, those children will have to go to residential schools outside the authority at a cost of £6,000 per child per year. If only eight children who could have attended Greenside school are sent out of the authority area it will cost Barnsley


£48,000 a year. So where will the saving be gained by closing the school? It is estimated that that will save only £46,000 a year.
The infant and junior children who attend Greenside school from Bolton, Thurnscoe, Great Houghton, Darfield, Wombwell, Hoyland, Platts Common, Kendray and Grimethorpe will face a long journey at additional cost if they have to travel to other special schools. It will be especially arduous if Springwood is full and they have to travel to Whinnoor school, at Barugh Green. Infants and young juniors will have to travel from one end of the Barnsley metropolitan area to the other under the pretext of saving money.
Greenside school has a well-qualified staff. It is a special school where the headmaster and his deputy teach a full timetable every day. It is the only special school that returns at least one-third of its intake to the mainstream of education.
Greenside school has particular success in teaching maladjusted children, as well as other children with learning difficulties. It exists to provide an essential service to the most neglected and educationally disabled children in Barnsley and district. Yet the education office says that the school will close on 1 September 1981.
What can be done to see that the school is fully used? First, one could remove the special powers of psychologists to block the requests of heads of mainstream schools to have their children looked at by the panel with a view to assisting them with their special educational needs. Then, one could have Greenside school registered as a special school for children with learning difficulties. That would cut out the need for psychological tests and create a more flexible system whereby the special educational needs of all children are met in a more rational way. In the short term, that would save the authority money and prevent many children from being sent out of the borough to residential schools. It makes financial and educational sense.
The objections put forward by the education authority to the continuation of this school are not good enough. It is obvious tht some of the children, if they are not given special tuition, will become a liability to the nation. If they have to go into special homes the cost is bound to be much greater.
I have not the slightest doubt that it is the Government's financial policy of reducing public expenditure that has created the problems of Greenside School. I ask the Minister to take immediate action to ensure that the school is allowed to operate as a special school for children with learning difficulties. The question of integration or segregation depends on how the education authority plans either of the two schemes. Before the former can be put into operation, and if it is to be successful, an efficient scheme—which, most likely, will be more costly—will have to be planned well ahead. In an earlier debate we were told the differences between integration and segregation. There are arguments for both.
What benefits can be given to those unfortunate children to ensure that they get the best that our education system can give them, that the cost is not too heavy, and that the Government realise that these children are better off in society and make a greater contribution to society if they receive the kind of education that they should have?
I ask the Minister to conider this problem and to ensure, if possible, that the Greenside school at Wombwell is kept

open until a better system can be found whereby these unfortunate children get the kind of college of education that they deserve.

Mr. Allen McKay: I am grateful for this opportunity to reinforce my hon. Friend's argument I was chairman of a school that was similar to Greenside school—the remedial school at Market Street, Hoyland. It was closed at about the same time. It was decided to open it a short time ago to help children who could not read or write. Children were drawn from the whole locality of the Barnsley metropolitan borough council to attend this special school. It had a high rate of success. In a short time, children were able to take their place in normal schools.
The school is now to close. I am very disturbed, as is my hon. Friend, that two schools in the area that cater for this type of child are to close. If the children go to a normal school, two things will occur. First, they will not receive specialist teaching, to which they have been accustomed, and they will leave school unable to read or write. Second, they will form a disruptive element in class and thus interfere with the education of other children.
I join my hon. Friend in asking the Minister to make finance available to ensure that these schools remain open.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): It is perhaps symbolic that the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) should raise this subject today in view of the Bill which was given a Third Reading earlier. The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue with me in two questions at Question Time. I am aware of his anxiety about the proposals that the Barnsley education authority has made for the Greenside special school. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I ignore the wider issues that he raised at the outset of his remarks. If he reads the report of the debate that took place earlier on the Education Bill, he will find that many of the issues were covered by both Labour and Conservative Members.
I shall deal first with the Barnsley education authority's intention to close the Greenside special school. As the law stands at present, the statutory procedures which apply to ordinary school closures do not apply to the closure of a special school. The local education authority is not obliged to publish notices giving details of its intentions, nor does it have to obtain the Secretary of State's approval. The Government realise that this situation is unsatisfactory, and the Bill which the House discussed earlier today aims to put this right. In future, when an authority wishes to close a special school it will have to notify the Secretary of State, the parents of all pupils attending the school, other authorities which have placed children at the school and any other interested parties. There will then be at least two months for those concerned to register objections, and any such objections which are not withdrawn as a result of negotiation with the authority will then be forwarded to the Secretary of State. Finally, whether or not there are any objections, the Secretary of State must consider the proposal and decide whether to approve it.
It is perhaps unfortunate timing that the proposal to close Greenside school has come up now before the new Bill becomes law, and doubly so in that parents and other local people with an interest in the school have, it seems,


been given little or no real opportunity to express their views. It is greatly to be regretted that the Barnsley education authority has chosen to handle the matter so abruptly and without any real attempt to conduct proper consultation. My Department has received no letters from hon. Members, from parents, from those in the immediate area or from those in neighbouring local education authorities who might be affected.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: rose

Mr. Macfarlane: I accept that they may have been sent, but I have not seen them. I am not aware of what action the local Member of Parliament—the hon. Gentleman—has taken.
It is important to consider the reasons underlying Barnsley's decision. I am bound to put the reasons before the House as they add an important balance to the argument. Greenside is a small school for children with moderate educational subnormality aged 5 to 11 years. The premises can accommodate up to 55 children, but numbers have been dropping steadily and at present there are only 29 pupils on roll. The hon. Gentleman said that the school has been run down as a matter of deliberation by the Barnsley education authority. I shall not be drawn into the reasons for that, save to say that in 1977 there were 49 pupils, in 1978 there were 46, in 1979 there were 45 and in 1981 there are 29.
The authority has two other ESN schools—Spring Wood and Whinmoor—which provide for pupils right up to school leaving age and beyond. Between them, these two schools can accommodate about 250 pupils and at present about 210 children attend them. This phenomenon of falling numbers is not, of course, peculiar to Barnsley. Indeed, it will be necessary on this account to take some 200,000 school places out of use in England generally by 1983–84. It is therefore right that authorities should look for a reduction in their own stock of places in good time.
Of the three schools, Greenside has the oldest premises and the fewest pupils. Moreover, when they reach 11 years the Greenside pupils must change their school. Some may transfer to mainstream education, but the majority will have to go to Spring Wood or Whinmoor. That being so, the question quite properly arises whether the children's own interests would be better served by attending one of these other schools from the outset. It seems to me that they will. That issue of continuity is important. However dedicated and caring the teachers, a small school cannot, by its very nature, offer the same range of facilities and learning experiences as can a larger one.
I am aware that many people believe that a break in education at the age of 11 or 12 is beneficial for handicapped pupils, while others prefer a change of school at 14 to encourage the development of courses and activities to prepare youngsters for independent living. Whatever the ideal may be, the situation in Barnsley requires Greenside children to transfer into a school where most of the other children entered as infants. However one looks at it, this can hardly be regarded as satisfactory.

Mr. Wainwright: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. A petition which has been signed by 3,700 parents has gone to Barnsley metropolitan borough council instead of coming to me and to the Department.

Mr. Macfarlane: I am interested to hear that. It enables us to understand what is happening locally. When there is local anxiety, it is perhaps unique for any of my hon. Friends in the Department not to have had some direct communication from the hon. Member or from the local people.
As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay), there are practical implications of closing any school in terms of the length of journey to alternative schools for the children concerned. In this case I understand that although some of the Greenside children will have to travel up to two more miles to school, others will have a shorter journey. Clearly, these are factors of particular concern to parents and may also affect the frequency and ease with which they can visit the school themselves. However, I understand that well over half the parents with children at Greenside school have already accepted the authority's offer of alternative placements for their children.
Parents will also wish to ensure that any special help that their child may be receiving at Greenside school will continue to be available. I understand that a number of these children have speech difficulties which require the service of speech therapists. Barnsley's special schools, like those in many other areas, can always make good use of more speech therapists. Conversely, any reduction in this area would be a matter of concern. However, I am assured that the local area health authority does not intend to reduce the amount of time spent by speech therapists in its employment in Barnsley's schools whether or not Greenside school closes.
As regards special education facilities for children with speaking difficulties, the first point that I would make is to reiterate the substance of my reply to the hon. Member's question on 12 May, as reported in Hansard at column 604, that it is the duty of each local authority to ensure that the educational facilities available in its area are adequate to meet the needs of all the children in that area. It is not for the Government to tell authorities how to discharge that responsibility and, as I am sure the hon. Member well knows, the Secretary of State can intervene only if a local education authority can be shown to be acting unreasonably or in any way failing to discharge that duty.
My second point is that a child may experience speaking difficulties for a number of reasons. He may be unable to speak properly because of some inherent defect of mind or body which justifies his being ascertained as suffering from "speech defect" within the meaning of regulation 4 of the Handicapped Pupils and Special Schools Regulations 1959; or his difficulties may be the result of some other handicap, such as deafness, such that although his speech-making functions are not themselves impaired he has never learnt to use them properly. In either case, the child will receive appropriate special educational treatment, either in a special school or unit for children with speech defects or as an adjunct to that appropriate to his main handicap.
But many other children who do not suffer from any formally ascertained handicap also have speaking difficulties which may arise for any of a number of different reasons—linguistically inadequate home environment, too frequent changes of school in the early, formative years, ethnic background, emotional or behavioural difficulties or even inadequate early teaching, to name but a few. Such children will usually receive remedial education in their ordinary schools, including,


where necessary, support from speech therapists and other specialists but without ever needing to attend a special school or special language unit. Clearly, the borderline between the handicapped and non-handicapped in these areas is inevitably blurred. This was one of the reasons which led the Warnock committee to recommend the abolition of statutory categorisation and the extension of the concept of special education to cover children with special needs as distinct from ascertainable handicap. I emphasise that education authorities have always had a duty to provide for all children, whatever their needs.
The hon. Member referred to dyslexia. Not long ago, I replied to a debate on that subject introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar). That subject was gone into in some depth. I recommend that the hon. Member has a look at that if he feels that I am falling short in providing information on that subject tonight.
That duty of education authorities is enshrined in section 8 of the Education Act 1944 and the new Bill in no way alters this fundamental precept. Nor would I accept that education authorities in general have ever chosen to ignore that duty in respect of children with speaking dificulties. The methods adopted in meeting such children's needs naturally vary from place to place and from time to time—and no system is perfect—but each authority's performance is to be judged on its results and not whether it has or has not adopted a system which matches any preconceived "ideal" provision.
Having already mentioned Barnsley in connection with the Greenside closure, I can only add that I am not aware of any evidence that children with speaking difficulties in that area are not receiving the education that they need. I cannot believe, if that were so, that the local education authority would not act with all speed. I am certain that the hon. Member would ensure that his constituents' interests were looked after.

Mr. Wainwright: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to speaking difficulties. Probably I am to blame for that. I told his office that I am concerned mainly about learning difficulties. I do not want the impression to be given that only speaking difficulties are concerned.

Mr. Macfarlane: I accept that. However, it is an important dimension to the debate. We cannot ignore it. It is important. The hon. Member alluded to the subject in previous discussions in the House.
We have received no complaint from the hon. Member. No doubt, the petition which has arrived at the Barnsley local education authority office will be forthcoming in the near future. No doubt, the hon. Member will discharge his duties admirably. If he has any specific cases in mind., I shall be happy to have them investigated.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-one minutes past Twelve o'clock.